Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SEIZURE OF CUSTOMS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the present position relating to the seizure of the customs in China'?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I assume that this question refers to the seizure of the Customs at Tientsin and the appointment of the late Mr. Lenox Simpson as Commissioner of Customs there by the Governor of Shansi last June. At the beginning of October the Governor of Manchuria, on taking over control of the Peking-Tientsin area, dismissed Mr. Lenox Simpson. A new Commissioner was then appointed by the Inspector General of Customs.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any action in the matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know any action that we could take.

SITUATION.

Mr. DAY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any change in the position in China since his last statement; and can he give particulars?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Since my reply to my hon. Friend's question on the 19th
November I have received a report that the Chinese Government forces claim successes in their operations against bandits in certain districts, but no definite news is available.

Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any report in regard to the missionaries who were captured last week?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes. I think there is some information, but I have not got it here.

VILNA BONDS (INTEREST).

Commander SOUTHBY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state what progress, if any, has been made in the negotiations regarding the claim for the payment of interest on the bonds of the city of Vilna?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I understand that the negotiations are still in progress; but I regret that, according to my latest information, no satisfactory settlement has yet been reached.

Commander SOUTHBY: If I put a question down in a month's time, or after the Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me a reply?

Mr. HENDERSON: I can only say for the information of the hon. and gallant Member that the position is a little more favourable, but how long it will last, I cannot say.

MEXICO (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will direct His Majesty's Minister in Mexico to request the Mexican Government to state the probable date upon which the Mexican legislature proposes to consider the agreement made on 25th July last between the Mexican Minister for Finance and the committee of bankers with regard to the 16-year-old default of the Mexican Government in relation to its obligations to British investors; and will he also request His Majesty's Minister to inform the Mexican Government that as the agreement was made five months ago His Majesty's
Government views with concern the delay in the ratification of the agreement?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Minister at Mexico City has already made such an inquiry of the Mexican Government, but was unable to obtain any information. His Majesty's Minister has already made it clear to the Mexican Government that His Majesty's Government are actively interested in the Bankers' Agreement, and I do not think that any further instructions in this sense are called for at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ask the British Minister in Moscow to ascertain the approximate number of persons who are employed in Russia under the categories of forced labour, mobilised labour, labour in places of incarceration, and public labour; and whether any goods consigned to Great Britain are produced by workers under any of these categories?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have addressed to His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow a despatch inquiring whether any statistics of the nature suggested in the first part of the question are available. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 25th of November to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statistics are available for 1928 showing that some 260,000 persons were sentenced to forced labour, and could he not get similar statistics for 1929, or some more recent date?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that I have nothing to add.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Could we know the same figure for any part of the British Empire?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

DEBTS, CLAIMS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how often the main Joint Anglo-Soviet Committee dealing with claims for compensation have met since their appointment, and how frequently they are in the habit of meeting?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The committee held its seventh meeting of the 27th of November last, and as at present arranged it will meet again on the 4th of December; the meetings, therefore, average about one in eight days. The committee has hitherto been dealing with questions of principle, assignment of particular classes of claims to the various sub-committees and similar matters of procedure. Discussion of individual claims has not yet been commenced, nor has the committee yet proceeded to deal with the evidence of claimants.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the enormous sum involved, that it is urgent that the committee should meet more frequently than once in eight. days?

Mr. HENDERSON: I agree, but I think I can claim that I have got this matter further than anyone else has yet done.

BRITISH EXPORT CREDITS.

Sir K. WOOD: 67.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what reply he has given to the proposal made by the Soviet Ambassador with the object of Great Britain granting long-term credits to Soviet Russia?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The Soviet Ambassador has made no proposal in the sense suggested by the light hon. Gentleman, though he has suggested that additional trade will result if more extended periods of credit were possible. If the right hon. Gentleman has the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme in mind, I would point out that the length of credit covered by guarantees under the Scheme is primarily a matter between exporters and the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the hon. Member had any reply from the Soviet representatives?

Mr. SMITH: I can only add that the suggestion is one which must be dealt with by the exporters and the Export Credits Department.

Mr. WISE: Is the hon. Member aware of the very large increase in the exports of machinery from Italy since Signor Mussolini made such an agreement with the Soviet Government

Mr. HACKING: Will the hon. Member say what is the limit of credit given to traders of this country who wish to do business with Russia 1

Mr. SMITH: I am not aware that there is any limit. Every case is dealt with on its merits by the committee.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Shall we do the same for our Dominions?

BRITISH PERMITS.

Sir K. WOOD: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Soviet subjects are at present in this country whose permits will shortly expire; whether any have applied for an extension of time; whether he proposes to extend any of these permits; and whether they will be subject to any conditions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The first part of this question could not be answered without an examination of individual files, which would entail work which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not think would be justified. Every application for an extension of time is carefully scrutinised and if an extension is granted the alien continues to be subject to a time condition.

PROPAGANDA (WIRELESS ADDRESS).

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast appeal issued in English last night from Moscow inciting British workers to revolution is a breach of the undertaking of the Soviet. Government, and what steps he intends to take?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have been asked to reply. My Department did not receive the full text of this wireless address until after one o'clock this afternoon. In the short time at my disposal
for its examination, I have come to the conclusion that, while it does not constitute an incitement to revolution, as suggested in the hon. and gallant Member's question, it is nevertheless, in my opinion, a departure from the undertaking given by the Soviet Government in regard to propaganda. In these circumstances, I am instructing His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow to address a protest to the Soviet Government.

Sir K. WOOD: How many protests are now outstanding?

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman listen in this evening and this week in order to hear the next Moscow propaganda?

Mr. HENDERSON: No. I think I shall be better employed.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would not a right good revolution be practical polities at the moment?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA.

SULTAN MKWAWA'S SKULL.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether Article 246 of the Treaty of Versailles, in so far as it affects the British Government, has been fully carried out; and when this was done?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government made representations to the German Government on this subject in 1920 and again in 1921. The German view was that the skull was not taken to Germany but buried locally. Although efforts were made to obtain confirmation of this view in Tanganyika territory, these efforts proved inconclusive and the whereabouts of the skull have never been established.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman making any efforts to carry out that part of the Article and more particularly what happens in the first part of the Article?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know what the hon. Member wants me to do. If he will let me know I will see what can be done.

Mr. MARKHAM: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any evidence of discontent in Tanganyika territory in the area of the tribe concerned regarding the non-return of the skull?

Mr. HENDERSON: No.

ROAD AND RAIL CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information regarding new road or rail construction, either in progress or projected, in Southern Tanganyika?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The report of the local committee which has been sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Sydney Henn is in the printers' hands and will be available very shortly. This will, I hope, afford the House ample information on the subject.

ADMIRALTY (STAFF ACCOMMO DATION).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will, in the interests of economy, make a fresh examination of the office accommodation of his Department for the purpose of inviting a transfer into the Admiralty of staff from cognate Government offices as has been done by the Board of Trade, which has resulted in the transfer of 170 persons from the Mercantile Marine Department, Great Smith Street, into the building at Storey's Gate?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The provision of office accommodation is primarily the function of my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, but in collaboration with his Department we have this autumn undertaken a re-allocation of the Admiralty staff, which was required owing to the condemnation of derelict temporary buildings erected during the War and the lease of part of the new Bank building in Whitehall. This has enabled us to transfer 294 persons into the main Whitehall buildings from offices in Kingsway.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

LEADING MEN S ASSOCIATION (ADMIRALTY ORDERS).

Mr. MARKHAM: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if copies of all Admiralty minutes relating to leading men will be furnished officially to the honorary secretary of the Leading Men's Association?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I regret that this is not possible, but if the secretary of this association desires to obtain a copy of any particular order affecting the grade he may obtain it on application to the Admiralty.

Mr. MARKHAM: Is it not possible that a similar privilege could be extended to other organisations?

Mr. ALEXANDER: A general distribution is only made to those unions that are represented on the Whitley Council, and I am unable to go further than promise the hon. Member that if any association of the kind that he mentions wants an order applying to their particular grade I shall be very happy to supply it.

BUILDING PROGRAMME.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cruisers and destroyers, respectively, have been commenced during the present financial year; and how many it is intended to commence before the end of the present financial year?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the construction programme for the year 1929, after reduction by the present Government, was held over until the meeting of the London Naval Conference, and vessels of that programme were accordingly not ordered, as in normal circumstances they would have been, towards the end of the financial year 1929. The following numbers of vessels of the classes referred to in the question were thus commenced in the current financial year:

One 6-inch cruiser.
One leader.
Four destroyers.

Conditions being now normal, the vessels of the 1930 programme will be ordered
as is usual, before the end of the financial year, as provided for in the Navy Estimates 1930. They comprise in the classes referred to in the question:

Three 6-inch cruisers.
One leader.
Eight destroyers.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: In view of the very large number of unemployed in the shipbuilding centres, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of commencing these vessels rather sooner than was originally contemplated?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am receiving a deputation on that matter from the shipbuilding industry on Monday next, and I would rather not say anything about it at the moment, but I hope that the House will remember the difficulties of finance.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the same concessions to the dockyards that he gives to private shipbuilding firms?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think that question had better wait until the concessions have been made.

PLYMOUTH NAVY WEEK (TRADING FACILITIES).

Sir HERBERT MELD: 13.
asked the First. Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that during the recent Navy week at Plymouth, although local traders were denied facilities for doing any business in Devonport Dockyard or on the ships, the canteen board of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute sold to visitors souvenirs and mementoes in the form of cigarette cases and other metal articles made in Germany and bearing in enamel the crest and name of His Majesty's ship "Renown" and other ships; and why this was permitted?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am advised that sales to visitors during Navy week at Plymouth were not made by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, and that all articles supplied by them to the organisers of the Navy week for the purpose of re-sale were exclusively of British manufacture.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any truth in the
statement or any foundation for the statement in the question?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As far as the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute is concerned, there is no truth at all in it. Of course I cannot answer for anything beyond Government supplies or those of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, but I should be very hesitant as to intervening in regard to any other transactions than these.

Sir H. NIELD: Is it true to say that local traders were denied facilities for doing business in the dockyard during that week?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Not as far as I am aware.

"ALMIRANTE LATTORE."

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the work on the "Almirante Lattore" will be completed; and if any arrangements are in view to absorb the employés who have been engaged on the work of this ship and thus obviate any necessity for their discharge?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The date for the completion of the work on the "Almirante Latorre" cannot be stated, but it is anticipated that, apart from normal wastage, there will in any case be sufficient work to enable the present level of employment in the dockyard to be maintained.

DISCHARGES, DEVONPORT (EX-APPRENTICES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many en-apprentices have been discharged from Devonport Dockyard in the last six months; the reasons for their discharge; and whether, seeing that ex-apprentices have had to pass a bard test and have spent four years being especially trained in dockyard service, he will consider putting a more satisfactory scheme into operation whereby apprentices may not find themselves discharged on completion of their apprenticeship?

Mr. ALEXANDER: With reference to the first part of the question, 34 ex-apprentices were discharged from Devon-part Dockyard during the six months ended the 29th November, 1930. Of this number 10 were discharged at their own
request; 21 on reduction and three on account of an adjustment of trades. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given in reply to his question on the 12th November, 1930 (OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1652).

ROYAL MARINES (PRE-WAR PENSIONERS).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether pre-War pensioners of the Royal Marines who re-enlisted during the War and subsequently obtained commissions in the Army or were commissioned and attached to Army units now receive full pension and retired pay as commissioned officers, or whether they are treated in the same way as commissioned pie-War pensioners of the Army?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The pre-War pen sinners in question now receive retired pay as commissioned officers, their former pensions having been withdrawn as from the date of the grant of retired pay.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "CORNWALL."

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that His Majesty's Ship "Cornwall" was built, launched, manned, and commissioned at Devonport, he car reconsider the decision to recommission this ship at Portsmouth, so that His Majesty's Ship "Cornwall" may remain a Devon-port ship

Mr. ALEXANDER: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member on 16th April last, the change has for its object the reduction of the time spent by Devonport ratings on foreign service, which has recently been in excess of the normal proportions. I think that is more important than the point of view to which expression is given in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong sentiment in the West Country regarding this decision? They feel that the ship should be recommissioned at Devonport as it was built at Devonport.

Mr. ALEXANDER: There seems to be a little misunderstanding in the West Country that we are taking this ship away. It must be remembered that we
are merely exchanging ships. They are getting the "Dorsetshire" instead of the "Cornwall."

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow up that sentiment and see that ships which are built on the Clyde are also repaired on the Clyde?

DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (PAY).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the revision of the pay of established men in the Royal Dockyards in 1909 reduced the pay of established men, but gave bonuses on retirement to certain classes of established men; that a definite sum is deducted ach week from the pay of established men, so that a hired man, who receives no pension, gets as much as 2s. per week more than the established man doing similar work; and if ho can say what is the object of this deduction and to what purposes the money so deducted is assigned?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in supposing that any reduction of the pay of established men working in His Majesty's Dockyards took place in 1900. The Superannuation Act of that year affected them as regards superannuation benefits in common with all other civil servants of the Crown and this is presumably what is referred to. As regards the second part of the question, no actual deductions are made from the wages of the established men. There is a well recognised distinction made between the rate of pay of a hired man and that of an established man of similar grade. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Sir B. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why any reduction is made in the pay of these established men?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have already said that no reduction is made as such in respect of superannuation. I have referred to the differential rates of pay which are based on the conditions of the whole service, including that of security of tenure.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Is it not the case that if an unestablished man becomes established there is a reduction of 10 per cent. in bonus and does not that mean a reduction in the amount of his pension?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The differential rates of pay are based not on the question of superannuation alone but on the whole conditions of service, including the important question of security of tenure of those men who are on the establishment.

PROMOTION.

Captain W. G. HALL: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ratings promoted to the rank of acting mate on 1st December, 1930, and, if no appointments have been made, the date these may he expected?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Six candidates have been accepted for promotion to the rank of acting mate, to date 1st December, 1930.

NAVAL RELICS, CHATHAM AND PORTSMOUTH.

Mr. MARKHAM: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the advisability of transferring the present collections of naval relics at Chatham and Portsmouth to the Royal Naval Museum, Greenwich, or to other museums where they can be looked after?

Mr. ALEXANDER: My hon. Friend's suggestion is a new one, and I will certainly look into it.

TUBERCULOSIS (ENGINE ROOM ARTIFICERS).

Mr. MARKHAM: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what number of engineer rating artificers and chief engineer rating artificers have been invalided out of the service during 1930 owing to tuberculosis; and whether, seeing that three of them in His Majesty's ship "Rodney" have been invalided during the months of August to October, 1930, he can say whether the conditions on board are a contributory cause?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Two chief engine room artificers, six engine room artificers and one apprentice. engine room artificer were invalided from the Service between the 1st January and the 31st October, 1930, on account of tuberculosis. Of these one case was of non-pulmonary tuberculosis. As regards the latter part of the question it is not considered that the conditions on board are a contributory cause as returns received from the ship to date indicate that the general health of the ship's company is very good.
Moreover the "Rodney," one of our latest battleships, is constructed entirely in accordance with the most modern principles and ideas in regard to ventilation and hygiene.

Viscountess ASTOR: Has there been any increase in tuberculosis during the last two or three years?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No, speaking from memory I should, say not, but, if the Noble Lady will put down a question, I will endeavour to answer it more fully.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the British Navy is the healthiest occupation in the world?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Yes, when there is peace.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

STOCK THEFTS.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the charges of stock thefts made against the Masai tribe of Kenya, he can give any information as to the number of such thefts which have occurred in the lands adjoining the Masai reserve during the past two years; whether there is any evidence of such thefts being committed by Masai living in the one-mile zone along the railway; and whether he will call for a report?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend will ask the Acting Governor of Kenya whether the information desired is available, and on receipt of the Acting Governor's report I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

WAKAMBA RESERVE.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Wakamba have a claim to the one-mile strip along the Kenya railway between Sultan Hamid and Athi River, the Government of Kenya proposes to include it in the Wakamba reserve; and whether the possibility has been considered, if the Wakamba need more land, of extending their reserve so as to include the Yatta plateau?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend is asking the Acting Governor of Kenya to furnish a report on the points raised in my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. FREEMAN: In view of the conflicting claims of these tribes, would it not be possible to get a neutral area and so obviate the risk of further difficulties?

Dr. SHIELS: This matter is being gone into and the point which the hon. Member brings forward shall be considered.

GRAZING AND WATER RIGHTS (MASAI CLAIM).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any report from the Governor of Kenya on the question of the strip along the railway, one mile wide, between Sultan Hamid and Athi River in which the Masai tribe claim customary grazing and water rights; and whether the commission on this subject which sat at Kin has yet reported?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, a report has not yet been received, but a dispatch was sent in October to the Acting Governor of Kenya inquiring when it might be expected.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that my hon. Friend promised a report in July last? Can he say when it is likely to come through?

Dr. SHIELS: It is true that I promised a report in July, but we are dependent on the Government of Kenya for it. As I say, we asked them last October to expedite it.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the rights of the Masai be prejudiced by this delay?

Dr. SHIELS: I do not think there is the least danger of that.

NATIVE TRIBUNALS ORDINANCE.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Kenya Native Tribunals Bill, now Ordinance No. 39 of 1930, was referred to the native councils, or to any of the native councils, for their consideration before being passed, as laid down on page 7 of the Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa [Cmd. 3573]?

Dr. SHIELS: The Native Tribunals Ordinance was drafted early this year and had been agreed to by my Noble Friend before the issue of the Native Policy Memorandum. There is no information in his possession to show that the Bill was referred to any native council after the issue of the memorandum. But it was largely to meet representations which had been made by the natives themselves through the native authorities that this legislation was introduced. Native opinion was thus already known, and there was not therefore, the same necessity to make specific reference to native councils before the Bill was actually passed.

ROADS (COMPULSORY LABOUR).

Mr. BUXTON: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether records are kept of the number of persons compulsorily employed on roads in Kenya under the Roads Ordinance or Native Authority Ordinance; and, if so, how many men were so employed during 1929?

Dr. SHIELS: Records are not kept of the number of men called out by headmen for maintenance of roads in native reserves under the Native Authority Ordinance Section 8 (H). The Acting-Governor of Kenya states that no request for compulsory labour on public main roads under Section 8 (0) of the Native Authority Ordinance, which would in any event require the prior approval of my Noble Friend, has been made during 1929; and that no labour has been reported as having been ordered out during the year under the Roads in Native Reserves Ordinance.

Mr. BUXTON: Are not these records rendered compulsory by the Forced Labour Convention which His Majesty's Government propose to ratify?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir, I believe that that is so, but, of course, the hon. Member's question refers to the Department.

ROAD EXPENDITURE.

Mr. HORRABIN: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the amounts allocated by the Kenya Government to grants for roads in the settled areas and in the native reserves, respectively, in 1929, 1930 and 1931?

Dr. SHIELS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given on the subject of expenditure on roads in Kenya to my hon. Friend, the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Hudson), on 5th June, 1928. I have forwarded a copy of that reply to my hon. Friend. The Acting-Governor of Kenya will be asked whether information van be supplied on the same basis as that given in the reply to which I have referred, in respect of the years mentioned in my hon. Friend's question.

JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE (NATIVE WITNESSES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a request from the Kenyatta - Kikuyu Central Association asking for facilities to send two delegates on behalf of the natives to give evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee and asking for financial assistance in order that these witnesses can attend in London; and what action has been taken in the, matter?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend has received a telegram to this effect direct from Johnstone, Kenyatta. In accordance with the usual procedure in such cases, a copy of this telegram is being sent to the Acting Governor of Kenya, who is being requested to inform the association that the question whether the Joint Committee will receive oral as well as written evidence is one for decision by the Committee, and that in the circumstances the question of arrangements for any delegations from East Africa to come to England for the purpose of making representations to the Committee must await the assembly of the Committee and the expression of its wishes in this matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Government prepared to give facilities for these witnesses to come before the Committee?

Dr. SHIELS: I am sure that the Government will be prepared to do all that they can to facilitate the proceedings of the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could not that fact be made known to these people, who are right in the interior and whose evidence would he very useful to the Committee?

Dr. SHIELS: The first meeting of the Committee is to be held to-morrow, and I do not think that there will be any harm in waiting until after that meeting, and seeing what is the decision of the Committee.

MARAGUA-TANA SCHEME.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the demand in Kenya that the publication of the report and the recommendations of the tribunal which decided adversely on the hydro-electric project known as the Maragua-Tana scheme, should be published without delay, he proposes to give instructions for the document to be issued?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has been informed by the Acting Governor of Kenya that the request for publication has been withdrawn. A statement as to the action now contemplated in regard to the application of the East African Power and Lighting Company has now been made by the Acting Governor in the Legislative Council, and if the hon. Member wishes, I shall be glad to suply him with a copy of the statement.

RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS (CONTRACTS).

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Kenya and Uganda railways and harbours administrations refuse to disclose the name of the successful tenderers in connection with their contracts as well as to state the amount of the successful tender or to ensure that all tenders are opened publicly at a stated time and place; and why the practice in other countries is not followed in Kenya?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend will inquire of the High Commission for Transport, Kenya and Uganda, as to the practice of the railways and harbours administration in this matter. On receipt of the High Commissioner's reply, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

TAXATION.

Mr. HORRABIN: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will request the Kenya Government to forward a copy of a detailed compilation of the per capita amount of direct and
indirect taxation paid by the various races among the Colony's population for the year 1927?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend will ask the Acting-Governor of Kenya whether he can supply the information suggested in my hon. Friend's question.

NORTH CHARTERLAND EXPLORA TION COMPANY (INQUIRY).

Mr. JAMES STUART: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is prepared to grant facilities for the public inquiry to be held which was asked for on lath October, 1930, by the North Charterland Exploration Company; and whether tie will undertake to hold the inquiry in this country and not in Northern Rhodesia, in view of the fact that it involves charges against a Department of State in this country, and that the agreement in question between the Colonial Office and the British South Africa Company was entered into in London?

Dr. SHIELS: The request, which involves legal and other considerations of great difficulty, is still under consideration. An inquiry, if held, would certainly be in London.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the hon. Member is still considering the question of having an inquiry into this matter?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir.

CEYLON (INCOME TAX BILL).

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he now has information as to whether the Colonial Secretary in Ceylon has announced that the Government will instruct the official members of the Legislative Council to vote for the Income Tax Bill?

Dr. SHIELS: The Income Tax Bill was introduced as a Government Measure, and the official members will vote, in accordance with the usual practice, as the Governor may direct.

Sir F. THOMSON: Will the hon. Member advise the Governor to allow the official members a free vote on this occasion, or postpone the Third Reading of
this Bill until the two vacancies among the unofficial members of the Legislative Council have been filled by election?

Dr. SHIELS: The hon. Member wed knows that these matters are normally left to the discretion of the Governor and I would point out that it is quite the normal thing when the Ceylon Government introduces a Measure for the official members to be expected to vote for it.

COLONIES (COMPULSORY LABOUR).

Mr. FREEMAN: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in which Colonies of the British Empire forced labour is employed, with details of such conditions where available?

Dr. SHIELS: As regards the territories for the administration of which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is responsible where recourse can be had to compulsory labour, I would refer my hon. Friend to a reply given to a question by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 16th December last, of which I am sending him a copy. As regards the second part of the question, I am afraid that in view of the great variety of forms which labour that might be held to come under this definition, may take, it is not practicable within the scope of a reply to a Parliamentary question to give any detailed statement of the conditions on which such labour is employed. My hon. friend may perhaps, however, care to refer to a publication issued by the International Labour Office of which a copy is being placed in the Library of the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in connection with another question asked by my hon. Friend. This publication contains a substantially accurate summary of the conditions on which forced labour is employed not only in the Dependencies for the administration of which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is responsible, but also in those of foreign Powers.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any information as regards the approximate numbers in any of these places at the same time as he is giving information on the other subject?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. I am afraid it is very difficult to get information in regard to the numbers, and I am not sure that I could promise to obtain such information.

Mr. FREEMAN: Would not approximate figures be available?

Dr. SHIELS: I think if the hon. Member studies the document to which I have referred him, he will find some approximate figures there.

Captain EDEN: What is the definition of "forced labour"?

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not as easy for the hon. Gentleman's Department to get the actual figures in this case, as it is for the Foreign Office to get statistics as to forced labour in Russia?

WEST INDIES AND CANADA (PREFERENCES).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position of the sugar and other preferential arrangements between Canada and the British West Indies; and how does it compare with the position as between Great Britain and the British West Indies?

Dr. SHIELS: By reciprocal agreement dating from 1912, revised in 1920 and 1925, certain products in which West Indies are specially interested, including sugar, bananas and cocoa, are given preferences in Canada, and in return certain products in which Canada is specially interested, such as flour, butter and cheese, are given preferences in the West Indies. All the preferences granted by the West Indies are applicable also to imports from the United Kingdom. West Indian sugar enjoys, in common with all Empire sugar, a preference in the United Kingdom of 3s. 8.3d. per cwt. for 96° sugar as compared with a preference equivalent to 4s. 8d. in Canada.
As to the details of the other rates, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Customs Tariffs of the various Governments concerned, and as to the practical effect of the preferences on sugar, to paragraphs 30 and 31 of the West Indian Sugar Commission Report (Command 3517).

Captain EDEN: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence that the West Indies have regarded this agreement as "humbug"?

Mr. BOYCE: Is the intention of the Government to increase the preference which is given by this country on sugar, grown in the West Indies, and in other sugar-growing Colonies

Dr. SHIELS: I think that that question has already been answered on other occasions.

Mr. BOYCE: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

VISIT OF GERMAN AIR LINER "Do X."

Mr. SMITHERS: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if a bill for expenses was presented to the officer commanding the "Do X" at the end of its recent visit to this country, and will he give the House the details of the claim; and whether there is any international agreement about these similar matters?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): As regards the first and second parts of the question, no bill for expenses was or will be preferred by the Air Minister against the officer commanding the "Do X" as a result of the visit of that aircraft to this country. As regards the last part, there is no specific international agreement. governing arrangements for visits such as that of the "Do X," but all customary courtesies were shown and received.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the hon. Gentleman take any steps he can to counteract the report in Germany that excessive charges were made for the visit of this air liner?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not know about any report in Germany, but, as far as the German Government are concerned, we have had expressions of extreme courtesy.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Does the payment in respect of the use by civilians and other people of Royal Air
Force transport, from the shore to civilian air liners, come out of public funds?

Mr. MONTAGUE: It does, but the amount is comparatively small, and there is this to be said in regard to it, that our own technical experts and officers had the fullest opportunities of examining "Do X."

AIR SERVICES (HULL-HAMBURG).

Lieut.-Commander KENWO RTHY: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any further information regarding an air route between Hull and Hamburg with a view, eventually, to linking Liverpool and Belfast; and whether his Majesty's Government has now considered offering an air-mail contract to any company inaugurating such a service?

Mr. MONTAGUE: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that local interests in Hull are giving consideration, as my hon. and gallant Friend is perhaps aware, to the possibility of establishing an air service between Hull and Northern Europe, and that such a scheme might lead to, or he combined with, further lines between Hull and the West. As regards the last part, no proposals for such a service have been received by the Air Ministry, and the position remains, therefore, as stated in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend on 80th July last.

Major ROSS: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to the possibilities of the link between Liverpool and Belfast mentioned in the question

Mr. MONTAGUE: I understand that a scheme is being considered by Manchester, and, as far as the Air Ministry are concerned, every possible advice and suggestion with regard to co-ordination between Hull and Manchester is being given.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is there any possibility of a scheme between Liverpool and Dublin?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I think all these schemes depend very largely upon finance.

SCHNEIDER TROPHY RACE.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement with regard to the recent meeting of the sports committee of the International Aeronautical Federation; and whether a satisfactory agreement has been arrived at between the British, French, and Italian aero clubs as to the conditions under which the next contest for the Schneider Trophy shall be held?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I understand that the International Aeronautical Federation have issued an official notice to the effect that the aero clubs concerned have arrived at a satisfactory agreement, the details of which are given in the Press this morning.

Sir C. CAYZER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any decision has been come to in regard to the question of permitting officers of the Royal Air Force to take part in the defence of the trophy

Mr. MONTAGUE: There is no decision yet. The matter is at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD SCHEMES.

Mr. DAY: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of road schemes in respect of which applications for grants have been made which are at present before his Department; and the aggregate amount which will be involved by these various schemes prepared by highway authorities?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr.Herbert Morrison): Under the trunk road and five-year programmes, over 300 applications for grant, representing a total expenditure of approximately £25,000,000, are at the present time before my Department. I have indicated approval in principle to the greater part of these, but fuller details and plans are required before they can be definitely approved for grant. I regret that it is not possible, without diverting staff from urgent work, to give corresponding figures for the numerous schemes under preliminary consideration for grant under normal annual programmes.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether estimates were provided by all the local authorities at the same time that the schemes were submitted?

Mr. MORRISON: If so, they would be in a very cursory form, but they have to put them in later.

Colonel ASHLEY: Suppose that the Road Fund is unable to furnish these vast sums of money, does the Treasury stand behind it?

Mr. MORRISON: I have a satisfactory agreement on that point with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand by that that the Treasury does stand behind the Road Fund?

Mr. MORRISON: If the contingency mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should arise, the Treasury will stand by the Ministry.

Mr. DAY: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statistics and can state the amount that has been spent in road schemes for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, giving particulars of the approximate amount of direct wages and the amount spent on British tar and/or local stone?

Mr. MORRISON: A statement regarding the total expenditure on roads and. bridges will be found in Appendix 13 of the annual report on the administration of the Road Fund. The last financial year for which information is available is the year 1927–28. During that year the gross expenditure by local authorities, including expenditure defrayed out of loans but excluding loan charges, was £58,798,707. In addition payments amounting to £597,514 were made during the year from Government Funds in connection with arterial road works carried out directly by my Department. I am not in possession of information which enables me to give the approximate expenditure upon British tar and stone.

Mr. DAY: Is it not possible to obtain information, as it is generally understood that the greater part of the tar and stone comes from the Continent?

Mr. MORRISON: I do not think that that is true. The local authorities generally make every effort to use British material, and the Unemployment Grants
Committee require them to do so. I cannot get all this information without taking my staff from urgent work in connection with unemployment schemes.

LEVEL CROSSING, HAVERTON HILL-ON-TEES (BRIDGE).

Mr. HERRIOTS: 46.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has sanctioned the erection of the bridge over the London and North Eastern Railway at Belasis Lane crossing, Haverton Hill-on-Tees; if so, what is the cause of the delay in beginning this work; and will be use his influence to get an early start on this bridge in view of the number of unemployed in the district and the fact that this is a dangerous crossing?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have not received formal application for a grant, but am informed that the Durham County Council are preparing a scheme for the erection of a bridge over the level crossing, and hope to proceed with the work at an early date.

MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES (RENEWAL NOTICES).

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 47.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will permit licensing authorities who have been in the habit of issuing reminders to drivers of the expiry of their licences to continue this practice provided the driver on renewal of his licence leaves with the licensing authority a stamped postcard addressed to himself for posting one month before the licence expires?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I cannot see my way to impose this additional work on the licensing authorities.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: In view of the fact that this matter possesses no administrative difficulty, and would cost nothing, would my hon. Friend give it. further consideration?

Mr. MORRISON: I have given very careful consideration to the whole of this question. It is not true that additional cost will not be involved, but I think in any case that, in the public interest, it should not he done.

Mr. EDE: If the licensing authorities are willing to undertake it, will the hon. Gentleman allow them to do so?

Mr. MORRISON: The local authorities in this matter act as agents of the Ministry of Transport and of the Taxa-
tion Department. I must, with due respect, control them in this matter, and I have come to the conclusion that there must be uniformity over the whole country, and that the responsibility for renewal must rest upon the motorists themselves.

RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS (SALARIES).

Mr. WALKDEN: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to supplement the information given in the Return of persons employed by railway companies by furnishing the following particulars: number employed at salaries exceeding £360 per annum, but not exceeding £400 per annum; £400 per annum, but not exceeding £500 per annum; £500 per annum, but not exceeding £600 per annum; £600 per annum, but not exceeding £750 per annum, £750 per annum, but not exceeding £1,000 per annum; £1,000 per annum, but not exceeding £1,500 per annum; £1,500 per annum, but not exceeding £2,000 per annum; £2,000 per annum, but not exceeding £3,000 per annum; £3,000 per annum, but not exceeding £4,000 per annum; £4,000 per annum, but not exceeding £5,000 per annum; £5,000 per annum and upwards?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I 1111 not in a position to furnish all the particulars asked for, but I am circulating certain information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Following are the particulars for the week ended 8th March, 1930:

Clerical, Supervisory and Technical Staff.



No.


£351—£400
…
…
…
3,145


£401—£500
…
…
…
2,021


Over £500
…
…
…
192

Officers and Administrative Staff.






No.


£500—£750
…
…
…
1,413


£751—£1,000
…
…
…
378


Over £1,000
…
…
…
424

AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport if every opportunity was given to inventors to demonstrate the models of their inventions before the Automatic Train-Control Committee; and what was the number inspected?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Committee to which my hon. Friend refers have now reported, and their report will shortly be published. The Committee examined a large number of specifications, or suggestions, which were brought to their notice by inventors and others, but it would appear that only in a few cases did the Committee think it necessary to give inventors opportunities to demonstrate the models of their inventions.

Mr. EVERARD: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, when sanctioning the grant of 60 per cent. of the cost of installation of automatic traffic; signals for use by local authorities, any stipulation is made by him that they shall be of British manufacture

Mr. MORRISON: Every endeavour is made to encourage local authorities to use British materials and plant, although it is not the practice to make an actual requirement to this effect in the case of normal grants from the Road Fund. In the case of works expedited for the relief of unemployment it is, however, a condition of the grant that only British materials and plant shall be used save with the express approval of my Department.

Mr. EVERARD: The last time I asked this question, some months ago, the hon. Gentleman told me that they were experimenting with these instruments, and that as soon as the experiments were over British materials would be used?

Mr. MORRISON: The questions put on that occasion were in respect of instruments constructed by my own Department, and that answer still holds good.

Mr. EVERARD: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport whether British manufacturers are now in a position to supply automatic traffic-control signals for use by local authorities?

Mr. MORRISON: A number of British firms are now in a position to supply automatic coloured light signals for traffic control.

Mr. EVERARD: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport whether when sanctioning the grant for the installation of automatic traffic signals by local authorities, any grant has been given to installations of British manufacture; and, if so, by which local authorities they are used?

Mr. MORRISON: Grants have been made in respect of the installation of traffic control by coloured light signals of British manufacture to the following urban authorities:

Eastbourne.
Reading.
Coventry.
Leicester.
Liverpool.
Bristol.
Birmingham.
Sutton-in-Coldfield.
Ashton-under Lyne.
Dundee.
Renfrew.
Felixtowe.
Lowestoft.

Mr. EVERARD: If these instruments of British manufacture are good enough for these local authorities, surely they are good enough for others, and why should not the right hon. Gentleman put them into operation all over the country?

Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the automatic signals that are put up are the best that can be obtained?

Mr. MORRISON: Those that are put up with the approval of my Department probably are the best that can be obtained, but I quite agree that the respective merits must be taken into account in connection with each installation.

Mr. JONES: Has the hon. Gentleman informed himself as to whether automatic installations in foreign countries are better or worse than or equal to those of British manufacture?

Mr. MORRISON: No, we have not come to a final conclusion upon that point. We are ourselves originating a scheme in Oxford Street, and we had to go to America for that purpose, because at that time British manufacturers were not in a position to give us equal service. I hope, however, that that condition of affairs will pass, and that we shall be able to take British all round.

Mr. EVERARD: May I have a reply to my question if British installations are good enough for the authorities which the hon. Gentleman mentions, why are they not good enough to use in other parts of the country?

Mr. MORRISON: Our experience is still limited, and it may be that we still do not know everything that we shall know about this subject.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Are we exporting any of these installations, and is the foreigner committing a sin by buying them?

LEVEL CROSSINGS, LEICESTERSHIRE.

Sir WILLIAM EDGE: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any attempts have been made, and, if so, of what nature, to reduce the number of level railway crossings in Leicestershire during the past year?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: One bridge in lieu of a level crossing is now under construction in the city of Leicester. The Leicestershire County Council have considered proposals for the elimination of three level crossings; but, in view of the large expenditure which would be involved and the comparatively small volume of traffic using these crossings, the council have decided to proceed with one only—that at Coalville, which is included in their five-year programme.

Mr. EVERARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several years ago I brought the question of this level crossing at Coal-vine before his Department

Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid that I was not responsible so many years ago.

BY-PASS ROAD, NORWICH.

Viscount ELMLEY: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has approved the scheme for the construction of a by-pass road through the parish of Thorpe St. Andrew, near Norwich?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The scheme has been approved in principle for a grant from the Road Fund. Further details are now awaited from the county council.

Viscount ELMLEY: May I remind the Minister that the land in this neighbourhood is very often flooded, and therefore special care will be needed in the building of this road?

Mr. MORRISON: I will bear that matter in mind.

TRACTION ENGINES (SPARKS).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet issued any Regulations to prevent damage being done to buildings and crops by sparks from traction engines, etc.; and when any such Regulations will come into force?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The point is being dealt with in Regulations now in course of preparation under the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I have given notice of my intention to make these Regulations, and propose to bring them into operation on the 1st January next.

FIRTH OF FORTH (ROAD BRIDGE).

Mr. MATHERS: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the proposed Forth road bridge; and whether the project to provide a roadway by constructing a dam across the firth between Port Edgar and St. Margaret's Hope is being examined along with other suggested methods of meeting the needs of transport across the Forth?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I made to his similar question on the 12th November last. As to the suggested dam mentioned in the second part of the question, the project has only come to my notice in general terms.

Mr. MATHERS: Arising from that reply, which I think the hon. Gentleman will realise does not carry us very far, can he clear the impression, which certainly does obtain in certain quarters, that if this project to bridge the Firth of Forth had been an English one it would have received better attention?

Mr. MORRISON: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is not the slightest foundation for that suspicion. As a matter of fact, one of the difficulties is that the Scottish authorities are urging that the general principles applicable to English schemes shall be very fundamentally improved in relation to Scotland.

TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS ACT.

Mr. SMITHERS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to allot a day for the Second Reading of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act (Amendment) Bill before Christmas?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Charley (Mr. Hacking).

Mr. SMITHERS: Was the statement of the Foreign Secretary at Llandudno made on his own initiative, or on behalf of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have enough to do to answer questions which are on the Paper.

Sir K. WOOD: Will not the Prime Minister take the House into his confidence about the matter? Is he in any difficulty or trouble about it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can allay the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman—absolutely none. In the course of a few days, I will ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to provide the necessary time for it, and I hope that they will agree to the arrangement.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (APPOINTMENT).

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has confirmed an appointment to the vacancy existing on the Central Electricity Board; and the qualifications for that position of the person appointed?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: A vacancy recently occurred among the part-time members of the Central Electricity Board, and to fill it I appointed Sir Ralph Wedgwood, Chief General Manager, London and North Eastern Railway.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is the Minister of Transport aware that the transport difficulties in the East End of London and right away to the middle of Essex are of such a nature as to require the whole attention of the general manager of a railway like the London and North
Eastern Railway, and that from the point of view of transport it is unfortunate that he is being given another position?

Mr. MORRISON: That is a matter, primarily, for the directors of the railway company, but the more we educate the general manager of that railway in the multifarious uses of electricity the sooner, possibly, we are likely to get electrification on that line.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: May I ask whether time will be placed at his disposal so that he can use on behalf of my constituents the information which he will acquire?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do we appoint members to the Electricity Board for educational purposes?

Mr. MORRISON: That might be a consideration, among others; and it is very desirable that the railways should he associated with the Central Electricity Board.

ROYAL PARKS (LAKES).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 58 and 60.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, (1) if he will state the reasons for, and the cost of, emptying St. James's Park lake;
(2) how long it is since the lake in St. James's Park was last drained?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): It is necessary periodically to drain this shallow lake in order to remove mud, etc. The estimated cost of the work is £210. The lake was last drained in February, 1928.

Mr. HACKING: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that one of the reasons for draining the lake is not that of the leakage, especially through the new expansion block?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have not any information on that point.

Mr. HACKING: 61.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how long it is since the Regent's Park lake was last drained?

Mr. LANSBURY: The main area of the lake was last drained in 1929. The
arms extending north-east and south-east were drained in 1907 and 1908 respectively.

Mr. HACKING: Why is it that it is not necessary to drain Regent's Park lake for so many years, and yet it is necessary to drain the St. James's Park lake?

Mr. LANSBURY: There is more dirt in the one than in the other, I suppose.

Captain EDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the "Lido" is to be drained?

Mr. LANSBURY: The "Lido" is being drained all the time; it drains itself.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, LEEDS.

Major MILNER: 59.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that a new Employment Exchange has been urgently required for some years in Leeds; what progress, if any, has been made in the provision of such an Exchange; and how soon it is likely to be provided?

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, Sir. Active search has been and is being made for a site, but great difficulty is being experienced in finding one suitable both as regards size and position and at a price which is not prohibitive.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (AUSTRALIA).

Major GLYN: 62 and 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether he will inquire of the Government of Victoria, Australia, when it is in-tended that the commission that Government has stated will be set up to inquire into the circumstances under which British migrants were placed on agricultural holdings evacuated by Australian ex-service men, and the conditions under which these families now exist, will begin their inquiries, and by what date the report will be submitted;
(2) whether he will make inquiries of the Federal Government of Australia as to the condition and whereabouts of 400 out of the 741 settlers who went to Victoria, having been selected by a representative of the Government of Victoria
and assisted in their passages under the terms of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Since I replied to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. A. Somerville) on this subject on 25th November, I have personally seen the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, with a view to expediting the commencement of the inquiry of the Victorian Royal Commission. I have no doubt that the Royal Commission will investigate the condition of the 400 settlers referred to.

Major GLYN: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that five members of the 800 who formed the original party sent out by the Oversea Settlement Committee are now in this country as a deputation from the men, and will he see them?

Mr. THOMAS: I should have no objection to seeing them if any useful purpose would be served. I know the tremendous hardships and difficulties of these people, and I spoke personally to the Prime Minister of Australia, who promised me that he would expedite the investigation. It will not help matters for me to see them when an investigation is taking place elsewhere; but I do not want it to be taken from that answer that I am unsympathetic to them.

Major GLYN: May I ask whether the British Government do not recognise some responsibility towards men who go out officially under schemes approved by the home Government?

Mr. THOMAS: I hope the acquiescence with which that question has been received does not indicate the general view of the House. If an agreement is made with a Dominion and circumstances arise which make it difficult, for whatever reason, to fulfil that agreement, it would be a very dangerous precedent for the British Government to be held responsible; but again I say that I am not minimising the hardships of those people in giving that warning.

Mr. BROCKWAY: We were not able to hear the original answer. Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say
that he is now satisfied that dire necessity no longer exists among these settlers

Mr. THOMAS: No, I did not say anything of the kind. The question put to me was whether there would be an investigation, and I answered by saying "Yes," and I have taken all the steps necessary to expedite it; but so far as the Government are concerned we cannot prejudge the issue.

BRITISH ARMY (TROOPS IN CHINA).

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any part of the cost of the British Army in China maintained there for the protection of British subjects residing in Shanghai and elsewhere in China is paid by such subjects either through the Income Tax or in any other way.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): If my hon. Friend is referring to the troops in the Shanghai and Tientsin areas, the answer is in the negative, except in so far as the Shanghai Municipal Council reduce the cost of the troops stationed at Shanghai by exempting from municipal taxation all lands and buildings occupied by them and allowing unoccupied land and buildings to be utilised rent free, and in so far as the British residents, in the same way as any other British residents abroad, may be liable to British Income Tax.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the people who own Shanghai should pay for the defence of Shanghai, and not the people of this country?

Mr. SHAW: I do not think that question arises out of the answer.

TARIFF TRUCE.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made at the recent Tariff Truce Conference at Geneva?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer on this subject which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon).

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this information from the officials who have returned will be forthcoming, in view of the great interest taken in it?

Mr. SMITH: My right hon. Friend, in answer to a supplementary question yesterday, asked that the question should be repeated later.

VIVISECTION.

Mr. FREEMAN: 69.
asked the Home Secretary how many licences for the performance of experiments on living animals have been refused, if any, during last year?

Mr. SHORT: Four applications for licences were refused during 1929.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman give the reasons for these refusals?

Mr. SHORT: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down another question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) among the refusals?

PROBATION OFFICERS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 70.
asked the Home Secretary whether there are any magistrates' courts in this country where they have not yet appointed probation officers; and, if so, will he issue a list?

Mr. SHORT: Thirteen out of the 1,028 petty sessional divisions of England and Wales were returned as being without probation officers at the end of last year, but these figures include all casual vacancies. A full list of courts, showing whether they are provided with probation officers or otherwise, appears annually in the Directory of Probation Officers and Home Office Schools, and my right hon. Friend does not think any useful object would be served by the issue of any additional list.

NIGERIA.

Mr. HAYCOCK (for Mr. LOVAT-FRASER): 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of
State for the Colonies what action the Colonial Office proposes to take on the report of the Aba commission of inquiry with reference to the provincial and native courts in Nigeria?

Dr. SHIELS: It is expected that the observations of the Government of Nigeria on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the disturbances of December last at Aba and elsewhere in South Eastern Nigeria will be available in about a fortnight. When they have been considered a statement will be made as to the decision arrived at.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend and consolidate the Colonial Naval Defence Acts, 1865 and 1909." [Colonial and Naval Defence Bill [Lords.]

ACCIDENTS IN MINES.

Mr. SUTTON: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the heavy loss of life and the large number of non-fatal accidents in coal mines and urges the Government to take every possible measure for the protection of those engaged in this dangerous industry.
This question has been discussed in this House almost every year for the past few years, and one wonders whether there is much more to be said on the subject, but at least there is something to be said on the question that the number of deaths and accidents is on the increase every year, and not on the decrease as we hoped they would be. My hon. Friend the Member for the Ince Division of Lancashire (Mr. G. Macdonald) went very fully into this matter of accidents in mines, and I do not intend to go into the large number of figures which my hon. Friend gave last year. I want to mention certain figures with reference to the increase in deaths and accidents during 1929, and the 10 months up to now in 1930. His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, in his report of 1929, says quite plainly that 985 persons working underground were killed, and this shows an increase of 100 persons over the previous year. The number of persons injured underground, as shown by the Inspector's report, was 162,230, or an increase of 13,098 on the previous year.
I put a question to the Secretary for Mines the other day asking for the number of deaths which have taken place up to date in 1930 in order that I might hate some idea as to whether the number of deaths for 1930 was on the increase. The Minister, in his reply, stated that over 800 deaths had occurred in the mines during the 10 months of 1930. Therefore, in the present year we do not seem to be making any progress in the direction of reducing the large number of deaths and non-fatal accidents in the mines of this country. A large number of committees, I understand, are set up in different Departments in connection with the mining industry, and they have been inquiring into this matter for some years past, but, unfortunately, as I have said, not much progress has been made; in fact, we seem to be going back instead of forward.
In the report of His Majesty's Inspector of Mines for 1929, reference is also made to the surface workers. There
were 12,651 persons injured on the surface, or an increase of 837 as compared with the previous year. I am not going to suggest that the present Secretary for Mines is responsible for this increase, but I hope that at least he will inquire very seriously into this question of deaths and accidents, and see whether the methods that have been adopted for many years past are not the wrong methods altogether, and whether some new methods ought not to be put into operation with a view to decreasing this terrible tragedy that we have in the mines from day to day and from year to year.
One wonders whether the amalgamations of collieries, the mergers, and the rationalisation that have been taking place during the last few years have had anything to do with the increase in the number of accidents. One knows that where amalgamations take place, whether of collieries or in any other industry, there must always be hurry on the part of the management with the men in those industries, and, in view of the amalgamations of collieries, the rationalisation, the putting in of coal cut ting machines and conveyers, and the application of electricity, one wonders whether these operations have not had something to do with the increase in the numbers of deaths and accidents during the past two or three years. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary for Mines will look very carefully into that question.
There is one class of deaths and accidents to which I want to refer very particularly, because, to my mind, it is a tragedy to see the large number of boys in our mines who are killed and injured from year to year. We have in the mines of this country 29;000 boys under 16 years of age working underground. The Chief Inspector of Mines gives certain figures, in his report for 1929, in relation to the number of persons killed and injured per 1,000 persons employed, and he classifies them as follows. Last year the number of boys under 16 years of age who were killed or injured was at the rate of 251 per 1,000 boys employed. In the case of boys between 16 and 18 years of age the rate was 230 per 1,000 employed, and, of those between 18 and 20, 223 per 1,000 employed. In the case of those aged 20 and over the rate was 209 per 1,000 employed; while for all ages it was 212 per 1,000 employed. I think that everyone in this House will
agree that, if there is a tragedy in this country, it is the large number of these boys under 16 who are killed or injured from week to week in the mines. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says that we ought to keep them at school and save them. At any rate we in this country ought to be, if not better, at least as good as they are in Germany, where it is illegal for any boy under 16 years of age to be employed in the mines.
I hope that the Secretary for Mines will make a note of these facts. I know that legislation would be necessary, but is it not time that the by-laws which are made by the Mines Department were consolidated into one Mines Act? We have not had a great Mines Act in this country since 1911. I hope that the Minister will consider very seriously the question of these boys. In my opinion, they ought not to go down the mine when they are under 16 years of age, and at least we ought to try to protect the lives of such boys. I know that the Secretary for Mines would like, if he could, to do something in the direction of preventing the terrible waste of life which is entailed by this inhuman system of keeping boys underground.
4.0 p.m.
I want to give a few general figures to show what has been gradually taking place in the mines of this country during the past eight and a-half years, from 1920 to 1929. It must be borne in mind that for seven months in the year 1926 the mines of this country were not working, and, in fact, some of our men with whom I have spoken from time to time say that the only time when there are no deaths or accidents is when they are having a play-day. During these eight and a-half years, the numbers of persons killed, and the nature of the accidents, were as follow: Falls of ground, from roof or coal face, 5,193; haulage, 2,268; surface accidents, 1,003; shaft accidents, 406; explosions of firedamp or coal dust, 389; miscellaneous accidents, 1,181. Thus, in eight and a-half years, some 10,440 persons were killed in the mines of this country, or an average of well over 1,000 per year. The numbers injured during that time were: From falls of roof or coal face, 543,826; miscellaneous accidents, 515,691; haulage accidents, 387,993; surface accidents, 130,267; shaft accidents, 8,232; explosions
of fire-damp, 1,321. In these eight and a-half years, therefore, 1,587,330 persons were injured in the mines, apart from the 10,440 who were killed. Something ought to be done by the Mines Department. I do not want to weary the House by reading the speech of the Chief Inspector of Mines at Newcastle, where my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines was instrumental in arranging the Conference on Safety in Mines last. Saturday, at which, unfortunately, owing to pressure of business, he was not able himself to be present. There were 3,000 people—miners, firemen, colliery managers, colliery owners—all meeting together for the purpose of discussing how they could best prevent this great loss of life that is taking place from time to time in the mines of this country. His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, in his remarks, mentioned that something might be done if they could adopt steel supports instead of wooden supports. He said that he knew he was standing in thin ice, but he concluded his remarks by suggesting a greater use of steel and more attention to supports and made other suggestions. Many people at that conference gave their opinion as to how they thought deaths and accidents could be reduced. Therefore, I do not intend to trouble the House this time with that question. His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines, however, in his annual report says:
It is quite true that many accidents occur due to the contravention of the law, to carelessness, and to persons taking foolish and unnecessary risks. But whilst these causes of accidents may, to some extent, be met by stricter discipline"—
He used the same words on Saturday, apart from his report, but he said that he did not mean military discipline—
and better education, there is no use disguising the fact that mining is work that cannot be carried on without taking risks.
I think that anyone who knows anything about the mining industry knows that quite well. I have attended hundreds of inquests, unfortunately, on men who have been killed in the mines in the district that I used to look after as a miners' agent, and the coroners generally used to remark that the men were too courageous and perhaps took much risk. But when it is remembered that miners are accustomed to danger all their lives, sometimes when they think that they are
safe, they may go a little too far, and take a little too much risk. It is not only the miners. The management also take risks many times. When it is remembered that the miner, speaking generally, is paid by results, he wants to get as much coal out as possible, so that he can take a reasonable wage home at the week-end to his wife and family. I am one of those who have always been opposed to piece rates altogether. Pay a man a day's wage for a reasonable day's work. I have seen many of these men bullied because they were not able to get as great an amount of coal as the management thought they ought. I hope that the management, and the men as well, will take as much care as possible in trying to prevent these accidents. There was an explosion at Blantyre some little time ago. I have a cutting here from one of the newspapers giving a report of the inquest. The question was asked:
'Were you surprised when the explosion took place? '—' No, we were all expecting it for months past, because of the bad ventilation and the presence of gas.'
This was the remarkable statement made by John Smith, a miner, at the resumed inquiry at Glasgow to-day into the cause and circumstances of the Blantyre pit disaster. Six men lost their lives in the disaster And nine others were injured.
In the explosion at a colliery in Lancashire, the Lyme Colliery, Haydock, 13 miners were killed and 10 injured. After the inquiry, criticism was made in respect of the supervision of the mine. The Inspector states:
I feel confident that if visits to the working by superior officials during the afternoon and night shifts had been the custom in this mine, better discipline would have been maintained, and the probability of detection would have kept the fireman from disobeying the very definite orders that he had received.
The report mentions that the afternoon and night shifts were supervised normally only by the fireman or firemen who happened to be on duty, and no official superior to a fireman visited the working during these shifts. The Inspector recommended supervision by a higher official as being necessary. I have seen firemen at work, and there is not the least doubt that they have a great amount of work to do. They are not to blame, in my opinion, for many of these accidents or negligences. They are pushed along by their superior officers, and if they do not
hurry and scurry the men, and even hurry and scurry themselves, they have got to go sooner or later. They have to look at the economic position, and many times they become a little negligent when they ought to be more efficient. If we had more workmen inspectors paid by the State and not by the colliery owners, these men would be able to supervise the workings, and give more efficient service than they do at the present time. In conclusion, may I appeal to the Secretary for Mines to look into this matter very carefully, particularly the case of the boys, and consider the tragedy of the parents when these deaths are happening from day to day. I would ask the hon. Member to consider this matter seriously, and, in the hope that he will do so, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Motion.
One thing that has appealed to me while I have been listening to my hon. Friend has been the attention given by the House to a Member who speaks with sincerity and modesty. The Mover of this Motion has brought forward these particular qualifications. He speaks with conviction on a subject with which he has been in close touch all his life. That conviction gives him sincerity, and, therefore, he is able to put before the House a picture as vivid as anyone could desire. This subject comes up constantly before the Members of this House. Most of them, I expect, get weary of the repetition. If the accident rate were reduced, I can well understand the non-necessity of bringing this matter forward, but I find that over a long period it is slightly on the increase. I have looked up the Samuel Commission's report of 1926, because some time ago I found that they had made inquiries covering a long period. This is what they say:
Coal mining is admittedly amongst the most dangerous of occupations.
They state that in the period of three years, 1922 to 1924, the annual death rate from accidents among underground workers was 1.13 per 1,000. Then they gave the comparison over a period between 1873 to 1882, the annual death rate for which period was 2.57. The report goes on to say that since then the dangers had been greatly reduced by precautionary measures until it was less than
half. That shows a progressive line all the way through. I find that this year we have gone back on that progressive rate. The figures for 1929 show an average death rate of 1.29 per 1,000, or an increase of 16 per 1,000 over the period of 1922–24. Therefore, there is a progressive increase in the rate of accidents, and we feel justified this afternoon in calling the attention of the House once more to the terrible conditions which prevail. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain have this matter constantly before them. It is composed of men who are facing this danger every day, and, naturally, we are in the best position to inform the House of what particular precautions we think ought to be taken. In regard to ventilation, we make a strong point. We say that if the rule or the law is carried on with regard to ventilation, many of the accidents occurring from that cause would be prevented. I will read Section 29 to show how good it is if carried out:

"PROVISIONS AS TO SAFETY.

Ventilation.

(1) An adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly (a) produced in every mine to dilute and render harmless inflammable and noxious gases to such an extent that all shafts, roads, levels, stables and workings of the mine shall be in a fit state for working and passing therein, and in particular that the intake airways up to within 100 yards of the first working-place at the working-face which the air enters shall he normally kept free from inflammable gas."

If this were carried out in its entirety it would prevent explosions, because explosions cannot, in my opinion, be created unless there is a certain amount of firedamp present. If this were done, there would be none of these terrible accidents. I put this question to the Secretary for Mines yesterday:
How many explosions of fire-damp causing loss of life there have been during 1920; and how many of them have been caused by shot-firing or by electricity?

This is the reply:
During 1929 there were 13 fatal explosions of fire-damp, and they caused a loss of 34 lives. Three, in which 13 lives were lost, were due to shot-firing. One, in which nine lives were lost, was due to electricity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1930; col. 1955, Vol. 245.]

There were 13 explosions, and 34 lives were lost. I would ask the House to visualise what this would have meant if the explosion had taken place where a
large number of miners were working. As long as explosions can take place, one must have in mind the possibility of one of those terrible disasters which shake the country every time they take place. Therefore, we lay particular stress on the question of ventilation. If the air current is passing out of a roadway five feet high by four feet wide, we get an area of 20 feet. As it gets along the coal face, and has to make its way hack to the return airways, it has to go through a narrow aperture, and there is insufficient air to make the gas non-inflammable. It may be asked, Seeing that the air is going along the main airway, must it not be going somewhere? So it does, but it is making its way back to the main return airway by other ways, where it ought not to be. That is caused many times by insufficient stowage or packing of the roadways leading to the coal face, with the result that instead of diluting the gas and making it harmless, we find at the coal face many times pockets of gas that cause an explosion. I want to call attention to this very serious state of things, because if we could get this Section of the Act carried out, many lives would be saved. At the explosion to which my hon. Friend referred, one witness was asked whether the ventilation was sufficient, and he said:
He was not satisfied that the ventilation was sufficient, but it was as good as it could be in the circumstances, as the inlet was barely sufficient to give a good quantity of air for a time.

That is the point that I want to impress on the Minister, that, this Section, if carried out effectively, would do all that is necessary to render the mines safe from explosion, but if the return airways or the outlets are not big enough, it is impossible for the work to be done efficiently. I may be asked, Why is the Section not carried out? I would reply that the fireman, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend, and whose job it is to see to this work, is many times over burdened by other duties. The Act of Parliament is quite clear on that point, however, and I have no fault to find with it, if only it could be carried out properly. Section 14 of the Act reads as follows:
For every mine there shall be appointed by the manager in writing one or more competent persons (hereinafter referred to as firemen, examiners or deputies) to make such inspections and carry out such
other duties as to the presence of gas, ventilation, state of roof and sides, and general safety (including the checking and recording of the number of persons under his charge) as are required by this Act and the regulations of the mine.
(2) A fireman, examiner, or deputy shall be required to devote his whole time to such duties as aforesaid.

The point that arises is, Does he devote his whole time to these duties? I am satisfied that he does not, but here is a duty that rests with the mines inspectors, and I want severely to criticise the mines inspectors on this point, because in this Section provision is made as follows:
Provided that any duties assigned to or undertaken by any fireman, examiner, or deputy in addition to his statutory duties shall not be such as to prevent him carrying out his statutory duties in a thorough manner; and, if any question arises whether any additional duties are such as to prevent him carrying out his statutory duties in a thorough manner, that question shall be decided by the inspector of the division, whose decision shall he final.

I want to ask the Minister of Mines if he or any previous Minister of Mines has had any complaint from a fireman that has been redressed by an inspector, and, if not, has he ever taken it upon himself to make inquiries as to whether a fireman has had too much work to do? I feel satisfied that in this question of the work of the fireman lies one of the greatest dangers in the mines. The Act further states:
The district of a mine assigned to a fireman, examiner, or deputy shall not be of such a size as would prevent him from carrying out in a thorough manner all his statutory duties.

If that Section were carried out efficiently, it would go a long way towards helping us in the saving of life in the mines. Here is a further statement made by a witness at the inquiry into the explosion that was dealt with by my hon. Friend:
On Wednesday, William Anderson, fireman, said that he fired a number of shots. He did not test for gas beyond the immediate vicinity of the shot-holes and he did no stone-dusting. He had to fire 22 shots which would have taken 5½ hours. Other duties would take an additional hour to perform. On the day shift he had too much work to carry out the statutory duties of a fireman under the Act. He had complained to the assistant manager that the work was too much for one fireman to per-
form. Specifically, he complained that he had to assist lads who were loading coal at the road head. On 15th August he stopped the night-shift from going into the section because of an accumulation of gas, but took no steps to measure it. Witness also stated that after he had submitted his report of the explosion to the Mines Department, he was dismissed from the colliery. Mr. Jemmell told him he could no longer employ his as a fireman, but offered him work as a roadman. He suggested that the reason was that he had stopped so many men.

That is the main cause of this difficulty, and I am speaking now from personal experience, as one who has witnessed this kind of thing. When we have seen gas at the working face, we have known very well that the fireman fare not report it. He has had to do all he could to get it clear, but we know very well what it would mean if one of us was persistent in such a matter. It would mean that we would be thrown out of work, and therefore the fireman is in the same difficulty. He dare not report these things, or he would have to go, as this man had to go, and the only way to deal with this matter is to remove the fireman from the grip of the employer by making him a State servant. The job of a fireman is the most important position in a coal mine, and I feel satisfied that the fireman, with his attainments and knowledge, if relieved of that economic fear, would have no hesitation at any time in saying, "There is something that wants attending to, and I will see that it is put right." Much hangs on the work of a fireman, and although we may not be able to get the trouble remedied to-day, I trust that the Secretary for Mines will see that this matter receives his most careful attention.

I want to deal with another important point. I have been trying to find out at what part of the mine accidents mostly occur. The number of fatal accidents underground in 1929 was 1,076, against 989 in 1928, or an increase of 87. I tried to locate where the majority of those accidents happened, and I found that from falls of roof at the coal face the increase was 67, so that out of the increase of 87, 67 were in one particular spot. In this way we are able to localise a particular point in the mine to which attention should be directed.

Rationalisation has brought certain improvements into the mines for getting out coal, such as coal-cutting machinery and conveyors. Along the coal face are conveyors, which make a terrible row when carrying the coal along. There is one thing which is inherent in a working miner, and that is what I might call a second sense that knows when great danger is near. The practical collier always seems to sense when a roof is going to give way, and it is wonderful how he can find that out, but he has to have a certain amount of silence in the mine for the exercise of this faculty, and with this coal-cutting machinery working, that second sense, which means so much to the miners, is lost entirely, with the result that very often the working face at the moment when the men go in, gives way and buries a number of them. I do not know how we are going to regulate that state of affairs under present conditions, but it is a question that is well worth attention, and if something can be done to remedy it, I feel sure that much will be done to reduce the number of accidents at the coal face. I would urge the Secretary for Mines to ask his inspectors to watch closely this kind of thing, in order to see if something cannot be done, it may be by getting machinery that will not give off so much noise.

Another point that is raised by the Miners Federation is the question of the number of gateways leading into the coal face. Before the advent of machinery, there would be gateways, say, every 10 or 15 yards, but now, owing to having a long length of coal face, there may be 200 yards length of face, with one gateway leading into the main road, and another gateway at the top end, or 200 yards of face without any other means of outlet. If a fall takes place there, a man has to chance which gateway he can get to, whether at the top end or at the bottom end, and in the interests of safety we want additional gateways so as to allow the men to get out when these falls take place. There may thus be a chance for them, so that they will be able to get away if there is a means of doing so. That again requires attention from the Minister.

In putting all these things forward, we realise that we are all the time up against the economic position. Many lives would
be saved but for that kind of thing, if it were not for the hurry and scurry and the necessity of getting out returns. If that could only be dealt with, many lives, I am convinced, could be saved. I want the House to realise what this question means to the nation—this loss of life and limb among our people. First of all, there is the number of lives that are lost. Then there are the men who lose arms or legs; and beyond that there is the loss to the nation through the loss of man-power.

I want to call the attention of the nation to these things. We know that in times of war, when these things happen, the nation realises that something should be done to stop them, but this is war in the economic sense, and it ought to receive the attention of the nation in an endeavour to prevent it. I have had a letter from a friend telling me that a mines inspector has been round giving a lecture on safety in mines. This man is a practical working collier, and he put the question to the inspector: Did he not think that if more attention was paid to safety, rather than to output, lives could be saved, and that the men should not be blamed entirely? The inspector refused to answer. It is firmly fixed in the minds of the miners that many lives are lost because of the pressure exercised by employers to drive them all the time, and I say to hon. Members opposite that those of us who speak on these questions speak with conviction and feeling such as can only be expressed by men who have had experience of these matters. In conclusion, I do ask the House of Commons to do all that it can in helping us to put down the number of accidents in the mines.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: In the first place, I desire to thank the two hon. Members who have spoken for the very clear and explicit way in which they have placed the Motion before the House. It is one that must commend itself to all parties without distinction. When we spend our evenings at home, or even in some of the rooms in the House of Commons, and enjoy the comfort and the glow of a bright fire, it should appeal to us that the coal that enables us to enjoy these comforts has been got through a good deal of risk to life and limb on the part of the men employed in the mines. I agree that there does not appear, at
any rate in the last few years, to be any substantial diminution in the number of accidents. When one looks at souse of the graphs that appear in the reports of the Mines Department, covering a large period of years, one realises that, although perhaps there has been a reduction as compared with, say, 50 years ago, there is no indication at present of any reduction, but that graph fluctuates, sometimes going down and sometimes rising.
Having regard to the fact that for a large number of years attention has been devoted to the question of safety in mines, one naturally asks what is the reason why there has been no substantial diminution in the accidents. I am certain we all agree that, if one accident can be avoided, it is one too many. I do not know whether we always appreciate that this is really the most hazardous occupation in the country. We are frequently disposed to pray for those in peril on the sea, but the occupation of mariner, except in the few remaining sailing ships, is not nearly as hazardous as that of coal mining. Although the fatal accidents in shipping are slightly more than those in the mines, on the other hand, non-fatal accidents in mines are practically three times as numerous as non-fatal accidents among seamen, and, if you take all the industries, the number of fatal accidents in the mines per 1,000 men is three times, and the number of non-fatal accidents 2½ times.
That being the case, it certainly seems that every effort should be made to find out what is the reason behind the incidence of accidents in the mines and whether there is a possibility of reducing this great toll upon the life and limb of the men employed in the industry. Reference has been made to the figures of the last few years, and particularly to the figures of accidents to boys of 16 and between 16 and 20. I see that a writer in the last edition of the Encyclopoedia Britannica, who has gone very carefully into the question of accidents in mines, says that 72 per cent. of fatal accidents, so far as fans of earth are concerned, and 45.6 per cent. of other accidents are unavoidable. To put it in the reverse way, 28 per cent. of the fatal accidents connected with falls of roof or face are avoidable and 54.4 per cent. of all other accidents. It comes to this,
that in the opinion of this writer, who has made careful research into the matter, one-third of all the fatal accidents are avoidable. That means that, if we could deal with these accidents, 300 lives could be saved every year. I also observe, not only from the figures in this article but also from the reports of the Mines Department, that 50 per cent. of all the accidents are due to falls of roof. Fortunately, not for a very large number of years have there been in the district with which I am connected any accidents due to gas except in one case. The accidents have been almost entirely due to falls of roof, or haulage, or on the surface. I have within my own knowledge a large number of cases where men were crushed under falls of roof, where fracture of the spine or some similar serious injury was sustained, arid many of these men had to spend what can only be called a living death, confined to their rooms in many cases for several years. It is in connection with this type of accident that one hopes something can be done.
The Secretary for Mines, who was also Secretary for Mines in July, 1924, issued a circular to owners, managers and officials, and to the secretaries of the various organisations of officials and men throughout the country, dealing particularly with this type of accident and indicating the opinion of his inspectors as to what were the matters of the highest importance which should be kept in view. It would be interesting to know the result of that circular and whether anything took place in the direction of improving conditions so far as falls of roof are concerned. I also notice in the reports of various inspectors of mines recommendations with regard to this matter. Reference was made by the Mover to the possibility of using steel props. In the report o the Secretary for Mines for 1928 the following words were used:
Steel props should be used in much greater numbers than at present. It is curious how deep is the conservatism of everyone connected with mines.
I do not know whether that may not be one of the reasons why there has been no improvement in this connection, but both officials and men are loath to make any new departure.
There are instances where steel props have proved themselves to be safer"—
Here is a point which must surely appeal to mineowners—
and more economical than timber, and yet no steps appear to have been taken to introduce them into other collieries owned by the same firms.
The Inspector of the Lancashire, Cheshire, and North Wales district referred, either in this year's or last year's report, to the position of the collieries in that area, and, as far as I could gather, very little in the way of the introduction of steel props has taken place. Incidentally, is not this a matter that should appeal to all connected with industry 4 The introduction of steel pi ops instead of importing timber would mean that some of the other industries of the country would benefit.
I should like to dwell for a few minutes upon the experience I have had in a certain connection with fatal accidents in mines. It has been my duty for considerably over 30 years to hold inquiries into all fatal accidents in mines in the county which I represent. It is very rarely that I have been forced to the conclusion that there has been anything in the nature of gross negligence. I do not say there were not cases where there was negligence and sometimes, though very rarely, negligence of a gross character, but, on the other hand, I am satisfied that in a very large number of cases the accidents should not have taken place.
I might possibly divide these accidents into two main categories so far, particularly, as falls of roof and sides are concerned. The first and the most common reason for accidents was the failure to use an adequate number of props. In many instances, the men had complied with the directions of the management and props were placed with the maximum distance allowed between then. Having regard to the nature of the grouting, the props should have been placed very much closer than the maximum distance, and had that been done it is conceivable that in a very large number of cases an accident would not have happened. I do not know whether occasionally even the old miner may not be to blame, having regard to the fact that he is anxious to get as large an amount of coal out of his working place as possible, for his neglect of the use of safety devices for
withdrawing timber. Time after time men have admitted that, instead of using safety devices which are available to them, they have simply taken one of their tools to deal with a prop, and then, where the ground has not been safe, a fall has taken place. This is a type of accident which, I am satisfied, is not due to anything in the way of gross negligence but to taking risks. We all must realise that it is desirable and necessary that every effort should be made to deal with the situation. The first essential in this connection is a closer cooperation between coalowners, the management, and the employés.
The Act of 1911, which I would remind hon. Members on the other side of the House was passed by a Liberal Government, contains a large number of provisions in the interests of the miners. Take Section T6 which deals with periodical inspection on behalf of workmen. This was the very first occasion, I believe, on which workers in a coal mine were in this way brought into closer relationship with the employers, and where they were entitled to appoint two persons with a practical knowledge of mining to inspect the mines once every month, and also after an accident. There is a penal Section under which, if the facilities asked for are refused, the management or the official who refuses those facilities is liable to penalties. I believe that in certain parts of the country the men employed in the mines have availed themselves of this provision, but I regret to find from the reports of the mines inspectors that in some parts of the country very little, if any, use has been made of the provision.
A recommendation was made by the Commission over which Lord Sankey presided for the appointment of safety inspectors whose main and primary duty should be to visit the mines and deal with this one aspect and this one aspect alone—the safety of those employed in the mines. Lord Sankey went as far as to suggest that there should be one inspector for every 5,000 men employed in the coal mines of the country. The coalowners, in that part of the report which they signed, also recommended an increase of inspectors, and greater attention to research and investigation and to the provision of safety appliances. In the interests of safety in the mines' it
is of the utmost importance that as far possible the inspectors who are brought into close touch with the men who are at work should be men who have themselves worked at the coal face and who know by their own working experience the risks of the men.
There is a point which is not without importance in coal mines in parts of Wales where Welsh is almost exclusively spoken. An English-speaking inspector going to those mines, either after an accident or to inspect a place with a view to seeing whether it is safe, is not in a position to enter into conversation with the men and to appreciate their views as to the conditions under which they are working. Recently I had an occasion to investigate an accident at a mine, and, unfortunately, the inspector who appeared to assist me was absolutely ignorant of Welsh. For a large number of years there had been a Welsh-speaking inspector in the area, and it was remarkable how he was able to assist in sifting the more technical evidence in respect of which I was not able to act with the efficiency of a qualified man. When Welsh witnesses appeared before an English-speaking inspector difficulties arose which would not have occurred if the inspector had been conversant with the Welsh language.
I would ask the Minister whether it is not possible for him to arrange for steps to be taken to impress upon local education authorities the importance of having evening classes for the younger men employed in the mines. In one of the towns with which I am associated, where there are a number of coal mines, the local education authority arranged classes in coal mining, with the result that a number of the young men employed at the mines were able to attend those classes and get a good theoretical knowledge of biology and of mining, which was of considerable service to them in the mines. In passing, I would ask: Is it possible for grants to be made out of the Miners' Welfare Fund specifically for dealing with the question of safety in the mines I This is a matter which we cannot impress to frequently and too seriously upon all men who enter the mines. If when the men first went into the mines they received instruction in this aspect of the difficulties with which they would be faced, I am certain
that it would ultimately assist in reducing the number of accidents in the mines of the country. I hope that the House will adopt the Motion and that the Mines Department will explore every possible avenue with a view to dealing with what is, after all, one of the most serious blemishes upon the industries of this country.

Mr. SHIELD: I desire to support the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Sutton). It is, I am sure, to be expected, and it is quite fitting, that one so lung and so honourably associated with the life of the miner, whose welfare has been his chief concern for many years, should bring forward for discussion in this House a Motion seeking to minimise accidents Li the mines. At the same time, I feel that he will be the last person to claim a monopoly of sympathy for, or interest in, that body of men whose daily occupation causes them to face the perils which are part and parcel of pit life. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) that the question is on 3 which must necessarily appeal, not only to every Member of this House, but to every right-thinking man and woman in this country. The desire to minimise accidents as far as is humanly possible is On e which we all possess, and the only differences that can accrue are in relation to the methods to be adopted whereby such accidents can be defeated. And yet—it may be due to the rapidity with which events follow each other in this quick-moving age—it is not until some great disaster occurs involving tremendous loss of life that the public conscience seems to be aroused and public attention focussed upon the dangers to which, from day to day, these men are exposed. I would remind the House that hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, accidents, fatal and nonfatal, are occurring in the mines of this country: men are slain, and the homes of our mining people are rendered desolate.
5.0 p.m.
I know that much has been done. Acts have been placed upon the Statute Book, and it is fair to say that the inquiries which have taken place from time to time in regard to accidents have been fruitful of much good and have resulted in much being done for those concerned. I do not
know whether it will be any consolation to us or not, but it is at least reasonable to congratulate ourselves upon the fact that the accidents which occur in this country per thousand persons employed, are very much less than those which occur in Germany and the United States of America. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint that that ought not to be a reason for us to give up our vigilance. It ought to urge us to make greater efforts further to minimise the accidents which happen from time to time. As has been said, if only one accident happened in the mines in 12 months that could have been avoided that is one accident too many. I believe very much good has accrued and that accidents have been lessened by the appointment of divisional inspectors and the inspections made by them. It should, however, in my opinion, be compulsory on mineowners to provide each official with the divisional inspector's report, and it should be incumbent upon the officials to read the report and make themselves conversant with the contents.
The hon. Member who spoke last spoke of the appointment of local inspectors by the miners themselves. I believe that has had a good deal to do with the minimising of accidents. The fact that. inspectors are selected from the ranks of the men themselves, men who know from experience the peculiarities of mining life, must be of inestimable value in the avoidance of accidents; but I believe that a still more beneficial service could be rendered if inspections were made not only at the time of fatal accidents but at other such periods as could be arranged; and made jointly by divisional inspectors, workmen's inspectors and the mine managers concerned. I think that would have great effect.
Then there is the necessity for appointing pit committees. There is at least in one colliery in Durham already, I believe, such a committee formed. Those committees should comprise the colliery manager, the under-manager, and the workmen's representative. They should meet periodically, discuss the various phases of mining life, especially from the point of view of safety, and, having done so, they should hold periodical meetings to which all the men in the colliery were
invited, so that they could have the benefit of the findings that had been reached through consultation. I know that there is still a certain reluctance on the part of managers to have any interference from workmen in the working of the mines. I have personally had the experience of having made suggestions to a manager and being told that my duty was not to think but to produce coal. That is not conducive to good working. A little less egotism on the part of such managers would be very beneficial not only from the point of view of safety but also from the economic point of view.
I want to emphasise what has been said regarding one of the greatest causes of accidents. Those who have practical experience can have no doubt that the rush and hurry of mining at the present time is in a very large measure the cause of very many accidents. Piece-men paid by results, however much the results may be, get very small pay, and they naturally seek to produce as much as they possibly can. It is peculiar, but it is a fact, that many of the accidents occur at the latter part of the shift when men are about to cease work. Those who have had practical experience know exactly what that means. There is a little extra hurry end exertion in order to get a little extra coal to earn a little extra money, and the result is that men take risks that in other circumstances they certainly would not take. Somebody has said that it is the pace that kills, but pace is simply an effect; behind the pace is the anxiety because of low wages and the pressure brought to bear upon the men. These things are conducive to making people take risks that they ought not to be called upon to take. That does not apply only to piece-workers but to day workers also. Under the manager we have officials whose duty it is to see that a certain amount of work is done, and one of the obligations placed upon them is to cut down costs as far as possible. That results very often in men being hurried, and plays a part in the number of accidents.
It has been said that our deputies who are responsible for safety in mines have too many districts to look after and too many men under them. That, I think, cannot be denied. I have been personally in districts under certain conditions and looked at the deputy's report. To say the least of it, knowing the district
and comparing it with the report given by the deputy, it made one wonder as to the fallibility of human testimony. The man is dependent for his employment on the mine manager or owner, and he is reluctant to complain lest he should be charged. The only remedy, as far as I can see, is that these charge men should be under the supervision of the Mines Department and should be independent of the mine-owners and the men.
The old system in vogue in Northumberland made it possible for the coal-getters to go down two hours before the transport hands and other workers descended, and they were able to get coal ready for transport. Now all the people—the hewers, the tillers, the transport hands—go down together ready to start at one moment, and the rush and hurry and bustle begins from the commencement of the shift and lasts to the close of it. In a small county like Nurthumberland 52 men and boys have been killed this year. Many also have been injured, and one of the alarming features in that county is the number of spine accidents. The men who suffer such injury will work no more, and I believe in many cases, if they could make a choice, they would choose death.
I was glad that the Mover of the Motion emphasised the necessity for something being done to avoid accidents to boys. In the 10 years from 1920 till now, out of every 1,000 boys employed in the mines of Northumberland there have been annual injuries to 389, which is the biggest percentage in the country. What is the cause of that? Before the Act of 1926 we had at least something to say as to the conditions that prevailed. That Act gives to owners power, which they ought never to have been given, and boys have been called on to descend mines at all hours of the day and night. I speak without exaggeration when I say that I knew cases where boys who go to the mines are away 12 hours from the time they leave home till the time they return, not during the day but during the night. What can we expect when we ask boys of 14 and 15 years of age who ought to be asleep to go down to the bowels of the earth at night? Can we expect to avoid accidents Do we wonder that their eyes become heavy from lack of sleep and that they are not as alert as they ought to be? We have a boy on one of our collieries working at the machine face and
he was killed after being only two weeks down the mine.
I trust that these things will have the attention of the Secretary for Mines. Cost has played a part in the avoiding of accidents. It was not until after the great disaster of 1862, where the loss was between 200 and 300 souls, that the public conscience of this country was so awakened as to demand that there should be two ways out of a pit. Prior to that time there had only been one way out, although it must have been obvious to anyone who cared to look how great was the danger that existed where there was only one way out of a mine. Avoidance of cost ought to play no part or a very small part when it comes to the question of saving human life.
It has been argued that many accidents are avoidable. With that statement I am not going to disagree. I believe that, in given circumstances, many accidents, fatal and otherwise, could be avoided, but to get that caution and that necessary care that are essential for the avoidance of accidents, we must. first of all remove the causes. The chief causes that exist to-day are long hours, especially under the emergency Clause of the Eight Hours Act, the low wages that at present prevail in the mining industry, and the hurry and bustle connected with mining operations. The rush to cut down costs is responsible for nullifying the benefits that would otherwise accrue from the provisions of the Mines Act. If it were not for this rush and hurry the provisions of the Acts would result in a much less chapter of accidents. Therefore, in order to remove accidents I suggest that we ought to try to remove the causes, remove the necessity for the rush, hurry and scurry of present day pit life, and give to our people a decent chance of working under decent shifts, which they have a right to expect.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Shield). We both come from Northumberland and with much that he has said I entirely agree. I would remind my hon. Friend that mining, quite apart from the hurry and scurry, is a very dangerous occupation. I doubt, even if there was no regard to expenditure, whether we could prevent many of the accidents which so sadly happen to-day. The hon.
Member very wisely pointed out that the great bulk of accidents are not big disasters, but that the daily accidents are the real killers in our mines, although they are less in this country than abroad. We have not had in this country, to my knowledge, a disaster so great as that which occurred recently in Germany, a disaster which every minowner and miner deplores. These big disasters come as lessons, and very often they teach us something which had been obvious before. If we could only exercise eternal vigilance, that would be the best provision for safety against disasters. I know that the bustle under present day conditions in the industry are responsible for many accidents on the part of the management and on the part of the workmen. Compensation from the management point of view is a serious financial item. Therefore, if the management can do anything to reduce the accidents it means not merely adding to the safety of the mines, but it is to their financial advantage. In these difficult clays the financial factor is one which might well be considered from that point of view.
I usually say something in these debates about the disaster at the Montagu pit, many years ago, and I should like to know from the Secretary for Mines whether the plans and the volumes in regard to waterlogged workings are steadily progressing. I think that the volumes are being issued steadily and I trust that the mines that are waterlogged in their workings are now being pretty well covered. It is important that we should proceed with the work of planning the mines that have been closed down, so that 100 years hence, when the mines are filled with water, we shall know exactly where they are. The trouble at the present time is to find the mines of 100 years ago which are lying underground, under water. We have a very hazy idea where they are. I am interested in any old plans that are coming to light and I should like to know whether the Secretary for Mines is satisfied that the charting of waterlogged areas is proceeding satisfactorily.
One hon. Member spoke about steel props. Falls of ground are the cause of most accidents in mines. We are told that steel props are safer than the wooden props, hut many of my mining friends tell me that they prefer wooden
props. They say that they can hear the wooden props crack, and therefore they know when danger is coming. As the hon. Member who seconded the Motion pointed out, the miner has a sort of sixth sense. He realises when trouble is coming. But the hon. Member also pointed out that in these days of modern machinery and the noises caused by coal cutters, coal conveyors and so on, a man has no time to utilise that sixth sense and cannot listen to any pit props cracking. Therefore, if steel props are more safe, as I believe they are, I hope that everything will be done to make known the benefits of steel props. I notice that Sir Henry Walker, in the excellent conference at Newcastle, said that the mining industry ought to have the slogan: "Use more steel." Let us by all means have that slogan.
I congratulate the Secretary for Mines on the conference at Newcastle. It was a first-class idea and must have done a tremendous amount of good. Those of us who do not know much about mining sat up and took notice of some of the things that were said at that conference, and we now know a great deal more than we did before. One of the inspectors who addressed the conference, Mr. Greenland Davis, spoke of shot firing and confessed that it often passed his comprehension how many shot firing accidents occurred. He declared that if the rules were adhered to the majority of accidents could not possibly happen. He instanced some almost incredible acts done by even experienced shot firers which had resulted in accidents, and suggested that one necessary step was to see that the deputies were not saddled with too much shot firing in addition to their statutory duties. I have been wondering whether there are any means throughout the mining industry of getting more education and more discipline in regard to these matters, not the discipline which comes from a rigid code of King's regulations, but discipline based on knowledge and experience, whether that could not be brought home to the workers and whether it would not be possible in the near future to have something akin to "safety first" throughout the mining areas. Many other industries have adopted "safety first" with very remarkable results, and it is worth consideration that "safety first" should be made a slogan throughout the
mining industry, so that equally desirable results might be achieved for the sake of safety.
There is common ground between both owners and men in the matter of safety in the mines and there is a desire, which was expressed at the Newcastle conference, that they should co-operate. I believe that many men are very anxious to co-operate, but they are sometimes apt to be choked off by the management, who say: "We can manage this business ourselves without your interference." In certain ways that particular management may be right, but there may be one case out of 100 where just a word in time might have put them wise, and where an accident might have been avoided. Then there is the inefficient management, where the men are hum-bugged all the time. There is great scope from the owner's point of view and the point of view of the men for co-operation in regard to "safety first." That would lead not merely to greater safety in the mines, but to greater prosperity for all who are concerned in the industry.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: I rise to support the Motion and I take the earliest opportunity of congratulating the Secretary for Mines on the fact that so soon after taking office he has attempted to get at the facts in regard to safety in mines. I refer to the conference which he convened at Newcastle. It was a great gathering. Some 2,500 persons attended, representing employers, workmen and the inspectorate. I am not certain whether all the expectations with regard to co-operation and good will will eventuate, but I readily agree that if we can have the scientific knowledge on the one hand and the practical experience of the workmen brought together, good results may accrue. The conference revealed facts and gave publicity to things that could not otherwise have been revealed and made public. As a result of the conference at Newcastle, certain facts emerge which merit the very careful attention of the Secretary for Mines. These facts were brought out by responsible men, experts in mining, and the Secretary for Mines will find sufficient evidence to warrant him introducing new legislation in order to carry out the suggestions which were put forward, if he has not sufficient power to do so at the
moment. But the Secretary for Mines must act upon the facts which such conferences bring out.
It would be idle to pretend that in a competitive system, where every nerve is strained to increase output, that risks are not taken which ought not to be taken. Very often, when we refer to such risks, we are thinking of the workmen, but I suggest that not only are risks taken occasionally by workmen, but that in some cases safety is sacrificed to production. My first suggestion to the Secretary for Mines is that all men in the pits who are responsible for safety ought to be divorced from production. They ought not to be associated with the getting of coal. They ought not to be responsible to the manager for the safety of the pit and also for production, because it follows that if a man is responsible for production his judgment may be seriously warped and biased. On examining a place he may feel that there is some little danger there, but that he ought not to stop the working at that place because of the output. The men responsible for safety ought not to be responsible for production.
The two main causes of accidents in mines are falls of ground and accidents upon the haulage roads. These are the two factors upon which we might concentrate. At the conference at Newcastle the Inspector of Mines said that these two prolific causes of accidents could be dealt with and the number curtailed. One tragic feature of the accidents upon the haulage roads is that they are most of them boys. During last year two boys out of five employed in the mines in Northumberland and Durham were injured. The actual figures were that out of every 1,000 boys employed, 399 were injured last year; and these accidents were largely avoidable. Sir Henry Walker, when referring to haulage accidents to boys, said that by improving the haulage roads there would be a considerable reduction in the number. There are lower roads, and narrow roads: and he also said that better clearings could be made. The boys are congregated at certain spots on the haulage roads, it is definitely known where these accidents occur. if the Secretary for Mines will examine the evidence given at the conference he will find ways and means of reducing the
number of these accidents although it may require legislation.
The next main cause of accidents is falls of ground, falls of roof and of sides. Sir Henry Walker showed that on a long wall face of 120 feet, 24 out of 26 accidents on an average occur right in the centre of this long wall face. That fact shows that if the owners were compelled to pay special attention to the centre of this long wall face, the number of these accidents could be minimised. It might be a little more costly, but not much more, and not nearly so costly to them in money as the loss of lives. In the centre of the long wall face, where most of these accidents occur, it is shown beyond all reasonable doubt that by the use of steel supports or by extra precautions at that point that a considerable number of these accidents might be avoided. I congratulate the Secretary for Mines on having convened this conference and taken the first step to get at the facts. Having got at the facts it will require a considerable amount of courage and resolution on his part to deal with them. I am not averse, indeed, I am sympathetic, to co-operation between employers and workmen and I hope it may be possible not only in these conferences but in pit committees, but I have some little doubt knowing as I do the relationship which has existed in the past. In the meantime, until these co-operative efforts can take place I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that he must rely more on the evidence produced at these conferences than upon the good will which may he shown.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: I understand that the Secretary for Mines has an important engagement at a quarter to six, and I am sure he will be doing better work there than in listening to my speech. May I join in the chorus of congratulations which has been showered upon the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, not only upon their good fortune in the Ballot but on the excellent way in which they have expressed their views. The views of practical men will always be listened to in this House with great attention. The Mover of the Motion apologised for introducing a subject which was debated as recently as 12 months ago. I do not think he need apologise. The more this question is de-
bated the better for all concerned. There are two advantages in these debates. In the first place, it allows the Secretary for Mines to inform the House of Commons of any new methods for the prevention of accidents which may have been discovered, and it also advertises those methods to the men who are working in the coalfields and who will have to adopt them.
We all agree that the number of accidents in the mines to-day is far too high. I have not had an opportunity of looking at the report of the Chief Inspector of Mines. The reason I suppose is that the Mover of this Motion knew that he was going to speak on this subject before I knew that I was going to speak, and I understand that there is only one copy of this publication in the Library. I am quite prepared to accept the figures he has extracted from that publication. He said that in 1929, 985 persons were killed in the mines, and 162,230 injured; and he told us that both those figures were an increase on those of the preceding year. That means that nearly three persons are killed every working day and over 500 persons injured every working day. One curious point in connection with these accidents, fatal and nonfatal, is that only an average of 4 per cent. of the deaths have been due to explosions over the last 10 years. If those 985 deaths in 1929 had been due to one or two explosions the country would have been awakened to the dangers of the mining occupation to a far higher degree than is the case at present, when they are spread probably over 500 or more accidents.
There is no discussion in this House which creates more difference between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members on this side than a debate on policy in regard to coal. It is therefore refreshing that to-day when we are discussing the subject of coal, not the policy of coal, we find ourselves absolutely united in support of this Motion. I have never had the ill-fortune to work in a coal pit except as an amateur. I have, of course, had many opportunities of seeing other people at work, and I have miners in my own constituency for whom I have the highest regard. A more determined and hard-headed—I know that to my cost—larger-hearted, generous and certainly a more courageous set of men do not exist.
I wish to make one statement which I hope will not be misconstrued or misunderstood. ft has already been made by the Mover of the Motion, although he used language rather different from that which I propose to use now. We know that familiarity is apt to breed contempt, and I have often wondered whether the miner, accustomed as he is to working in a most dangerous occupation, always takes the necessary care. Therefore, I say that miners cannot be too frequently reminded of the necessity for care in the interests of the safety of those working around them. I emphasise the point about the safety of those working around them, because they will take a than deal more notice of that reminder than of a reminder that they may be running the risk of their own lives by carelessness. They think more of the lives of other people working in the pits than of their own safety.
The next question is: How can we help in any way to achieve greater safety in the mines? It has been said that steel props and arches are safer than wooden props and arches. I have heard, however, that, as the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown) pointed out, there is something to be said for the retention of the wooden props. Of course, I realise that the time has gone when miners are likely to hear the cracking of the wood as they used to do before machinery was installed to such an extent in the pits. Nevertheless, I think it is an open question whether the wooden or the steel prop is more conducive to safety, and I wish to ask the Secretary for Mines to state, approximately, what is the proportion of wooden and of steel props at present in use in this country? If he considers, as a result of representations made to him or of knowledge obtained from experts in his Department, that steel props are on the whole safer than wooden props, then what action can he take to see that a larger number of steel props are installed?
The late Commodore King, when Secretary for Mines, set up a departmental committee to deal with the qualifications of firemen, a point on which a good deal has been said this afternoon. Such a responsible position should undoubtedly have attached to it
three main qualifications: first, a full and, if possible, a practical knowledge of the working of a mine; second, a complete knowledge of the regulations made as the result of Acts of Parliament and of the administration of the Mines Department; and, third, a fixed and firm determination to see that those regulations are carried out. It is a great deal more necessary now than it has ever been that those firemen should also have a fairly complete knowledge of electricity since that form of power is so frequently used both in coal-cutting and for haulage purposes. I wish to know if a knowledge of electricity is one of the qualifications required in the appointment of firemen.
A tribute has already been paid to the inspectors of mines. They are, it is admitted, conscientious in the discharge of their regular duties. There is apparently some doubt in the minds of hon. Members as to whether one set of those duties does not conflict with another but in the main I think it is agreed that the inspectors themselves are conscientious as far as time allows, with regard to their regular duties in respect of safety in mines. I am sure it is also agreed on every hand that they carry out their investigations promptly and efficiently. We must also pay a tribute to them for the bravery which they show in descending mines after explosions not only to carry out their investigations but to help in rescue work. I agree that the fullest possible credit should be given to them.
I have only one practical suggestion to offer in this debate and it is one which has already been touched upon by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hexham. I have often wondered whether there is sufficient propaganda in connection with safety regulations, not only among the owners and managers of mines but also among the miners themselves. Everybody connected with a mine ought to know how to work the latest appliances whereby danger may be averted and they should also have a full knowledge of all the appliances used in connection with rescue work. It has been wisely said that money spent on propaganda and on other methods of saving life is money well spent, and nobody in this House would dream of curtailing money spent in this way, in the interests of the miners, if they were satisfied that the expenditure
would result in a saving of life. I once more congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution on initiating this debate and I assure them, if such assurance be necessary, of our full sympathy with them in their desire to make mining a safer occupation for those who are engaged in it. We on this side will give our full support to the Resolution.

Mr. LAWTHER: A debate on this subject has taken place in this House practically every year for the last few years and there is scarcely a side of this subject which has not been touched upon in those debates. I desire, however, to mention one aspect which I think has not been referred to so far in this debate. This Motion while dealing with the heavy loss of life owing to accidents in mines, also refers to the large number of nonfatal accidents in mines, and the disease known as miners' nystagmus comes under that head for the purposes of the Coal Mines Regulation Act. I wish to urge upon the Secretary for Mines the necessity for dealing with that phase of the question. This scheduled disease is very serious in the coal-mining districts. For the year ended December, 1929, there were no fewer than 2,577 cases of nystagmus and this, added to a total of 7,261 already existing, means that at the beginning of this year there were 9,838 or practically 10,000 miners suffering from this dreadful disease. I know that, already, the best medical evidence that can be obtained has been taken on the subject and I suggest that just as the Secretary for Mines called the recent conference to ascertain new methods for the prevention of accidents in mines, so likewise, steps should be taken on similar lines in relation to this disease.
I wish to mention one aspect of the safety conference held at Newcastle. Everyone who has attended conferences can understand the difference which exists between an ordinary conference on any industrial or political subject and a conference which has to deal with a question of this kind, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who officiated as chairman of that conference readily appreciated that difference. The very first point put forward by the Chief Inspector of Mines, that there was too much haste in the mines to-day, was accepted by all parties to the conference as indicating a side of
the question which has to be understood. Hon. Members who have spoken from the other side of the House this afternoon have naturally expressed a desire to obviate as far as possible the danger of accidents in mines from which there has been such a terrible death roll. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) mentioned the differences of opinion which always arose when we came to discuss policy in connection with the coal industry. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they will find in the very large number of accidents which has just been recorded a result of that change of policy which was brought about by them when they occupied the benches on this side of the House.
It ought to be made clear that when shareholders and directors are urging upon managers and agents that the proceeds of a colliery this year are not as large as they were last year, indirectly they are helping towards that haste which has resulted in the tremendous death roll already mentioned. It may be true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown) has declared, that compensation plays a tremendous part in cost but we must realise that there is another aspect of that question, if the item of costs is to be brought forward in relation to accidents. I ask hon. Members, using the ordinary method of deduction from the facts, to take, for example, the case that the life of a boy in the mines, on the basis of compensation costs, is only valued at £15. Looking at the matter in that way we may be inclined to say that that fact accounts for the tremendous number of boys' lives which have been lost. I suggest, when hon. Members talk about cost, that it should not be said that the price which is being paid in relation to the loss of a boy's life is a price which is used simply for balance-sheet purposes.
6.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley suggested that there might be too little care on the part of the miners, or that they did not take just that care in regard to their own safety which they took in regard to the safety of others. In reference to that point I may tell hon. Members of an actual occurrence. I remember an instance of two men working in a pit on different shifts. When the back-shift man came in his fore-shift man was going out, the latter said, "Take care Jack" and his
"marrow" replied, "I will make that seven-eighths of my shift." The next day when he saw by the tokens that his mate had not produced as much as he had produced previously, he wanted to know what had happened and the reply was, "I have been taking your advice. I have been taking care." There is no question about it—if the miners did take heed to all these things, and if all the regulations were strictly carried out, production would be at just about the stage at which it is in Scotland at the moment. It is not a question of regulations. One speaker at the conference, speaking from the other side, said that he was afraid there were too many regulations. It is a question not only of too many regulations, but of too little time to digest them and to carry them out. I hope that these debates on accidents in mines will not be taken as mere hardy annuals. When an accident takes place in a mine, we know how easily expressions of sympathy come in on every hand. We on this side are absolutely convinced in regard to the point mentioned by practically every speaker in relation to what are known as foremen or deputies, and feel strongly that this is a question which must be dealt with in the law of the land. In this conference there was universal agreement that the deputy ought to be removed from the area of conflict, and that he ought not to be responsible to the management, but be a State official.
There is another point that I want to put forward with regard to the attitude inspectors ought to adopt towards complaints, When a complaint is sent to the inspector of mines for a division, he informs the manager of the pit concerned that he is going to inspect the pit on a particular day. Perhaps he gives 24 hours' notice. We suggest that when a complaint is made, the management ought not to be notified by the inspector that he. is going to inspect the pit. If it is, the management know all about what is going to take place. The inspector ought to adopt the position that the police often adopt when they enter premises for a particular purpose without making any notification. If the inspector adopted that policy, it would remove the suspicion in the minds of the miners that this sort of thing is all pre-
arranged. When the inspector comes along, everything that is lying in the roads is put on one side, and the place is made as respectable on occasion as this Chamber. If the inspector came along at other times, he would find a different set of circumstances.
One hon. Gentleman said that a big attempt should be made to impress on everyone concerned how essential it was that the knowledge of the various regulations should be obtained. In the Chief Inspector's report, we find that last year 15 lectures were given by inspectors in different parts of the country, and that eight of them were in relation to safety. Lectures are not so much needed as a tightening-up of the processes that are already in operation, and the adoption of practical suggestions. What is the use of hon. Members on the other side saying how pleased they were with the speeches of the Mover and Seconder and of other practical men, if we never get practical suggestions adopted? We want to see some of these suggestions adopted and made the law of the land, and we hope that when they become the subject of Bills, hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side will be just as desirous of seeing them carried out as we are, and will not complain that a suggestion may cost a halfpenny or a penny a ton, but will agree that they are efforts towards making mining, as far as is humanly possible, as safe as we believe it can be.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I have had the opportunity of listening to debates on this subject on many occasions, and I never fail to be struck by the sincerity and deep feeling with which hon. Members who have been intimately associated with the mining industry have put forward their views and with the sympathy that is generally displayed in all parts of the House towards the Motion. should like, as representing a Scottish Division in the county of Fife, which has a large number of mines and over 20,000 wage-earners, to deal with one or two points that have been raised as they refer specifically to the situation in Scotland. Mining has been described as
pioneering work which cannot be carried out without taking risks.
The duty of this House is to see how we can minimise those risks. I should
like to adopt the words of the Chief Inspector of Mines in a recent report:
Taking of risk is in reality anxiety to get on with work and in order that it may be taken with the best chance of success, the conditions should be for the person, and not against him.
Although great progress has been made in certain directions, there is a serious case to be dealt with, and we ought not to satisfy ourselves with the progress that has been made, but to declare the necessity for getting much further forward. I agree with the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Lawther) that this is the time when we ought to deal in a frank fashion with the situation with which we are confronted. As we look at the increase of the number of accidents in England and Scotland, it is clear that there is still a great deal to be done which can be done in order to avoid accidents which are preventable. I do not adopt the phraseology which is often used in this House about a percentage of accidents being unavoidable. A very large number of accidents which are considered unavoidable, could be avoided by better organisation and preparation and by better provision against the risk which has to be run.
In Scotland, during 1929, there was a regrettable increase in both fatal accidents and accidents resulting in serious injury, as compared with 1928. There is an increase of 31 persons killed and of 18 seriously injured. The non-fatal accidents resulting in disablement for more than three days show an increase of over 1,600. When we turn to the greatest cause of danger and of accident in mines, we find that the increase is reflected in the figures relating to underground haulage accidents and falls of roofs and sides. I have gone into these figures as affecting Scotland, and I find that under both heads there was an increase in 1929 as compared with 1928. When one considers the causes of these accidents, one finds abundant evidence, even in the reports of the inspectors, as to the necessity for further action being taken to avoid those accidents which are preventable. The report of the Chief Inspector in Scotland in regard to the underground haulage accidents, says:
If roads were made and kept of adequate height throughout, this kind of accident"—
referring to an accident caused by crushing against a low bridge of roof—
this kind of accident and a great many others as well could not happen.
Then he goes on:
Roads can be made of adequate size and steel arching will keep them to such a size better than anything else I know.
If we refer specifically to the causes under which such accidents happen, we find that quite a number would have been avoidable if the management had met the requirements of the situation. I am glad to think that in connection with haulage accidents, the Safety in Mines Research Board have appointed a special committee to deal with them, because it is one of the most urgent problems. In the last 10 years, 2,268 persons have been killed, and 385,725 injured in connection with haulage alone.
Turning to the falls of roof and sides, I find that in 1929 in Scotland there was a substantial increase, which was reflected all over the country. In Scotland, the increase included 20 persons killed. There was also a larger number injured from this particular cause. I should like to urge upon the House the responsibility which rests upon the management for setting out the methods of working the seams, and arranging for sufficient and proper supports in order to avoid, as I believe they can be avoided, a considerable proportion of the reducible percentage of accidents from this cause. The Inspector of Mines for Scotland lays special stress upon this point, and points out that the responsibility for avoiding this class of accident
lies heavily upon the management, and requires both thought and experiment to determine the best methods to meet the conditions.
I find that in a number of these accidents the cause is to be found in something which might have been prevented. With regard to explosions, Scotland is more subject to these than other parts of the country. In 1929, 31 out of the 50 explosions occurred in Scotland, and there might have been an even greater death rate considering the risk. I should like to support the Seconder of the Motion in his plea that something should be done to secure improved ventilation in the mines. This can be done in such a way,
and with inspection and discipline, as very considerably to minimise the risk. It is a duty imposed under Statute which, I believe, could be carried out much more effectively. In some cases blame is attached to those engaged in the industry because they refuse to use the safety lamps. I would like to see some form of safety lamp and electric lamp provided which would be an even better substitute for the naked light than the lamp at present in use. Better lighting of the working face would also do something to prevent the spread of nystagmus, which is an important point to keep in view.
I heartily support the suggestion that there should be an addition to the numbers of mines inspectors. Last year we were promised an addition, and four inspectors were appointed to deal with electrical machinery, which is now so much in use in the mines; but as there are 2,419 mines under the Coal Mines Act there is need for increasing the slumber of inspectors, and especially of practical inspectors who have a thorough knowledge of the working of mines. There are many practical men who are well equipped for the position of inspector, and I should like to see a larger proportion of them obtaining the job. Regarding firemen, I remember taking part in the debates on the Coal Mines Bill in 1911 and supporting the view, which has been again expressed this afternoon, that as far as possible firemen ought to be in a position of complete independence. A strong case could be made out for the contention that firemen should not be dismissable without an appeal either to a special board or to the Department. There is a great deal to be said for the suggestion that the firemen should be, to a large extent, independent of the management of the mine. In many cases they are grossly overworked, they have arduous duties, and it is due very largely to their efforts that there are not a great many more accidents in our mines.
I would say a word on two aspects of the problem which are sometimes rather left out of account. The welfare of miners themselves has a most important bearing upon the safety of the working of mines. Everything which tends to improve the health of the men renders them less liable to accidents. There is need for an improvement in their housing conditions, and they should be afforded greater opportunities for recreation. Pit-
head baths might also be provided to a larger extent than has already been done. And not least is the need to provide a sense of security and of settled employment, so that men will not always feel that they must take risks in order to make up their wages. They ought to feel certain of a fair wage for the work which they undertake. Disputes in the mining industry cannot fail to create a feeling of worry and unsettlement, which reacts upon the men. Fatigue and mental depression, which may be due either to indisposition or to anxiety about obtaining sufficient wages to maintain a family, all have their effect in depressing the vitality of our miners, and are to a considerable extent the cause of accidents.
The other point to which I wish to refer is the need for a closer association of the workers with the conduct of the industry. That was one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, of which the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was chairman. The Commission stated that there ought to be closer co-operation between the employers and the workers in what was, after all, a joint enterprise, and that while provision was already being made for the representation of workers on conciliation boards, advisory committees, the central welfare fund, and other bodies, there should he a still further development of co-operation through pit committees to deal with questions of safety and health and improvements in working methods, and in the provision of awards to men who make suggestions and the appointment and promotion of workers to responsible positions. In a spirit of co-operation much could be done to enlist the interest of all the workers in providing for safety in mines. Much can also he done by research work.
I hope that as a result of this debate it may be possible for the Minister to come forward with some fresh proposals. He should satisfy the House that another effort will be made, that we are not going to allow things to stand as they are. Really, we are going back at the moment. The revelations made this afternoon, particularly as to the younger boys engaged in mines, ought to stimulate the Minister to take a step forward. I have the deepest admiration and regard for the miners as a body, having had the privilege of working amongst them and
having also represented a mining division of Lanarkshire for eight years, and I would add my special appeal to those we have already heard that we should make it our duty to see that this large total of preventable accidents shall not continue from year to year as is the case now. We do not want to meet next year in similar circumstances to find that nothing more has been done. In the interval there should be a fresh effort to solve this problem.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: One feels that hon. Members must be getting weary of these repeated discussions about accidents in mines, but the facts are that in the 12 years which have elapsed since I first took part in the proceedings here accidents have increased rather than decreased; and the plea we make is, therefore, just as urgent as it used to be 12 years ago. At least we can be thankful for some things that have been done by Act of Parliament. We have swept away some of the dangers which at one time used to lead to those terrible explosions which made widows and orphans in such large numbers. Those explosions do not come so frequently now, but in other directions accidents have increased very much indeed. sometimes think I must have been a very fortunate boy. After working 2½ years at the surface, cleaning coal, I entered the mine at 12 years of age. It was practically a new mine. My job was to drive a horse, which stood about 10 hands high, inside the mine. When I went to the coal face with the empty tubs I could get inside them quite safely, and when I was returning with the full ones I could get on to the top of the tubs and ride quite comfortably to the point where I had to take the coal. I worked in that mine for many a year, and gradually I saw the haulage roads becoming narrower and narrower and decreasing in height, until at the present time a pony standing only nine or 10 hands high has enough to do to get along, and the tubs can barely clear the roads, either in the matter of height or width.
In these conditions accidents must occur to the boys, especially if we take into account the terrible hours they are required to work. A boy who has been at school and whose mother has been
getting him to bed at 9 o'clock at night, in order that he may be up in time in the morning is taken on at the pit and finds that he has to start work at a quarter of au hour before midnight. An incident was brought to any attention last week in which a boy had done a little more than he was asked to do. It is well known that men and boys descend the pit together, and this boy went down with the first lot of men. When he arrived below, the appliances he required were not ready for him, because another boy was still using them, and he sat down and fell asleep. Can we wonder at it? Because of these inhumanities boys are not as agile as they ought to be. Nature refuses to carry on in such conditions. If those are the conditions tinder which cheap coal has to be won, it is up to the inspectors to see that the mines are made as safe as possible for all working in them. The conditions ought not to be such that a boy who falls from a tub may lose his life owing to the narrowness of the roads. More height must be provided for the haulage roads. I should add that there are boys who go into the pit at 8 o'clock at night and leave it at 3 o'clock next morning; and there is another shift working from 10 till six or half past six in the morning. All these conditions should he taken into serious consideration, for, after all, nature will play her part in the case of these boys.
I am not surprised at the accidents arising from falls of roof. Under the old conditions the working places were narrower and it was easier to keep the roofs safe, but when 120 feet of coal has been undercut for five feet there is certain to he some "give" on the part of the roof. Yet men are working at the coal face there to load that coal. My very last day in the pit was spent in an effort to find out what should be a reasonable price for this kind of work, and I had to scramble along on a conveyor to get to where the men were working. Something must be done for these men who work under conditions such as those which have been described. There ought to be more co-operation amongst all those concerned in mines in order that the number of accidents may be minimised as far as possible. We have been told what has been done up to the present, but there is plenty of room for the adoption of further safety methods, although
there is more safety in mines than there used to be when I was a boy, nearly 60 years ago.
Steps have been taken to increase the production of the mines without paying proper regard to the safety of human life, and I would prevail upon hon. Members of this House to consider seriously the risks which these men undergo while working in the mines, and remember the miserable wages which they are paid for undergoing many risks which can be avoided. I know the risks that I have taken myself, but I am pleased that the precautions I also took were always sufficient to secure my own safety. I have done my share of that kind of work, but I am very anxious that every possible step should be taken to reduce the number of avoidable accidents. There are still a great many more accidents than the figures show that could be avoided under a proper system of supervision and care. I hope that the Secretary for Mines will take up this matter, and do all he can to reduce the terrible loss of life and the number of accidents which occur so frequently in the mines of this country. I am sure the total can be brought down and minimized, and I trust that the Members of this House will listen to what practical miners have to say as to what can be done in the direction of reducing the number of accidents in our mines,

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I have listened in this House to debates on this subject every year for the last nine years and I wish on this occasion to make a special appeal to hon. Members. It has been said that the inspectors do their work extremely well, that the deputies perform their duties equally well, and that miners, generally speaking, have not deliberately thrown their lives away. Nevertheless, there must be some reason for this constantly increasing number of fatal and non-fatal accidents. All this indicates that one of two things ought to be done. Either the existing regulations are not being carried out or, if they are being carried out, they are not sufficient to achieve their abject. I would like hon. Members to bear in mind that of the total amount of compensation paid for fatal and non-fatal accidents, no less than 40 per cent. of that sum goes to the families of miners or mine workers, and I think that proves that
there is something sadly wrong with a system which imposes upon one particular section of the community such a large number of fatal and non-fatal accidents.
These accidents can be largely identified with defective ventilation in the mines, and if sufficient care were taken in regard to this question, the ventilation of the mines would not be impeded as it is in many cases to-day. I know that raises the question of cost. The deputies in various parts of the country have such large districts to cover that it is physically impossible for them to carry out their duties as they ought to be carried out. Again, I believe that the number of accidents could be considerably reduced if the regulations relating to timber were carried out more rigorously, and all the inspectors report in this sense. They know that the regulations are not carried out and consequently the appeal, instead of being made to Members of this House, ought to be made through the secretaries to the inspectors of mines urging them to insist upon the regulations being carried out in every part of the country.
Haulage roads are another cause of accidents. The height of the roadways is quite insufficient to enable boys and young men to perform their task with any degree of safety. Here, again, it becomes a question of the cost, and lack of supervision on the part of the deputies, who find it is physically impossible to do their duty in seeing that every regulation is carried out. Another cause is the danger of shot-firing, and that is a considerable item. The result of shot-firing in the county of Durham was considered at a conference which took place on Saturday last initiated by the Secretary for Mines. I have here a letter from the district local inspector of mines who knows what he is writing about on this question of safety. I want to bring before the notice of the Secretary for Mines, who is unfortunately absent on more important business, the suggestions which this local inspector has to make after listening to all the speeches which were made at that conference. Mr. Greenland Davies, the Northern Inspector of Mines, declares:
In a number of mines the deputies and shot-firers had far too many shots to fire, and a person carrying out the regulations
could not fire a shot in less time than from eight to 12 minutes.
That is the opinion of a local inspector of mines who has made a report to the Government inspectors in which he says:
Compare this with eases I have reported in fire-damp pits where deputies have had all the other statutory duties to do and also fire up to 50 shots in a shift.
These men, in addition to performing the duties of a deputy, have the dual responsibility of firing 100 per cent. more than the maximum number of shots which any individual ought to be permitted to fire in any single shift. Therefore, this inspector makes the following suggestion:
That the manager at each mine should fix the maximum number of shots which an individual should fire, and enforce that by limiting the detonators given out to that number.
The same inspector proceeds to make the following suggestion:
That the qualification in the Coal Mines Act, 1911, Section 14 (2, b) which exempts Durham and Northumberland deputies from devoting their whole time to their statutory duties should be cancelled or annulled, and that they should devote their whole time to statutory duties.
In a number of mines where electric safety lamps are used, the workmen have no means whereby they can tell if the atmosphere contains fire-damp, and they have to depend upon the deputies' examination with an ordinary oil safety lamp. On this point the inspector says:
Professor Wheeler suggests that it was only when there was 5 per cent. fire-damp present in the general body of the air that you had an explosive mixture. That was a wrong inference to give, and he knows quite well that von can have an explosive mixture in a cavity near the roof where an explosion could originate, and yet no-one could say that there was anything like 2½ per cent. in the general body of the air which is the danger point when men have to be withdrawn. I ask how a deputy would he able to detect 1¼ per cent. with an ordinary safety lamp, I was told that it would take an expert.
All these explosions which occur close to an electric coal-cutting machine could he obviated if the regulation were carried out. This local inspector proceeds to make the following suggestion:

"(1) That the workmen should know when there is an explosive mixture present.
(2) That the human element should not be saddled with the responsibility of detecting 1¼ per cent, of fire-damp.
I suggest that some form of automatic gas detector should be made compulsory at certain specified points.
I wish to make particular reference to this phase of accidents in our coal mines. It is true to say that the loss of life due to explosions in mines has been decreased tremendously during the past 50 years, but the loss of life, as distinct from the number of explosions, has not materially changed during the last 20 years. For instance, from the years 1910 to 1919 inclusive there were 137 explosions involving loss of life to the extent of 1,419, but in the last 10 years, from 1920 to 1929, there were still 134 explosions, although the loss of life in that period was only 389. What I suggest is that as a result. of the research and the experiments which have taken place, the danger of the spreading of an explosion when it actually occurs has, to a very large extent, been minimised by the use of stone-dust, but the total number of accidents remains where it was 20 years ago.
I want, therefore, to remind the House that not only is the demand that the use of an automatic gas alarm should be made compulsory being made by local miners' branches in all parts of the country, but the present President and the ex-President of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, who have attended more inquiries into the causes of mine explosions than any other two men in the country, have been compelled to recognise that the cause of these explosions has been the presence of gas which was known to the officials and which could have been removed; and it is because of their accumulated knowledge that this is and constantly has been the case that they insist upon the necessity for making some form of automatic gas alarm compulsory, so that the ordinary workmen may not be dependent, as is the case at the moment in a large number of collieries in this country, upon electric lights, with which they cannot detect gas at all. Where an accumulation of gas does happen to occur at present, and an accident takes place, the men are blown to smithereens, and it is not known what happened to them.
If we try to examine the position in relation to this phase of mining life and mining disasters, we readily see what the situation is. My hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Sutton) referred to the evidence in the case of the
Blantyre disaster. In that case, not only the miners but the officials knew of the existence of gas for long periods, and, indeed were actually anticipating an explosion. Similar evidence was given at the Haydock inquiry. In the case of the recent Scottish disaster, the deputy who submitted his report to His Majesty's Inspector was dismissed by the colliery company for his trouble, because he dared to give a true report to His Majesty's Inspector. That is only one case, but it indicates the fear of the mine worker to leave his working place when he discovers that 2½ per cent. of gas is present. The law is broken every day because the men fear victimisation.
At almost every inquiry conducted by the Chief Inspector of Mines for a number of years, it has been proved that the men knew of the presence of gas, and that the colliery officials knew of the presence of gas, and yet nothing happens until an explosion takes place, when there is a page in a Blue Book, many departed friends and that is all. Decently, the Hebburn Coal Company, of Wallsend, were prosecuted on 26 counts, and the prosecuting counsel, in opening the case, said that he did not think that the fact that fire damp and gas were found in the pit was disputed. Mr. Edgar eraser, His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, said that during his inspection of the pit he found accumulations of explosive gas, that he impressed upon one deputy the seriousness of making inaccurate and untrue reports, and that the manager had every chance to know that the reports were untrue, as he countersigned them. Therefore, not only did the men, the deputy and the colliery manager know that gas was present in this case, but His Majesty's Inspector of Mines knew that gas was in the pit; but nothing happened until an explosion took place and two men were sent up in the air. In the case of the recent explosion in the South Wales coalfield, where nine men were sent to their doom, the coroner summed up the situation in the form of question and answer as follows:
Was the explosion gas, or coal dust, or both?—Gas.
Where did the gas come from and accumulate?—On 'B' conveyor face.
Was the explosion purely an accident?—No
Was the explosion the result of a negligent act or acts, or omission or omissions,
and what were they?—Insufficient ventilation, defects in the coal-cutter, and faulty supervision.
In that case nine men were sent to eternity. The decision at the inquiry was that the accident was due to faulty supervision and bad ventilation, and that in no way had the Mines Act been carried out. Therefore, I suggest that we have had ample proof, in almost every inquiry that has taken place, that the cause of the explosion was fire damp, and that, if the men had dared to leave the colliery when they knew of an accumulation of fire damp, no lives would have been lost. At the inquiry into the Wath Main colliery explosion, the coroner, after all the evidence had been given, stated that:
The impression left on his mind by the evidence was that the tests made for the detection of gas by colliers and the deputies might be improved on. Another point was whether the system of testing for gas by the flame lamp was sufficiently up-to-date, and might not be added to or improved upon by the addition of mechanical safety devices.
The coroner was supplementing the evidence given by the colliery manager, who himself said that, if three persons tested for gas in one place, the results of all the tests would be different—that, if the tests were made by colliery agents, the results would be different, and if they were made by miners' agents the results would be different; and he said that any automatic gas alarm which would remove the possibility of explosion would be very useful indeed.
In 1928, the then Secretary for Mines gave his approval to what is known as the Ringrose automatic gas alarm, after extensive pit trials. It was again approved in 1929, and various tests have been made with it, both in laboratories and elsewhere. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the present Secretary for Mines whether he does not think that those tests have now proceeded far enough to enable him to take the lesser risk by insisting upon the use of this apparatus in minimum numbers, rather than allow a continuance of the explosions which take place year by year with unfailing regularity. It has been said that there might be some risk in making compulsory an automatic gas alarm before it has been made absolutely perfect. All that I have to say on that point is that we are taking the risk of not using an
automatic gas alarm at present, and we are losing approximately 40 lives each year. Any day we may be losing 250 lives, and then there will be that national wave of sympathy which means nothing to those who are made widows or left orphans.
If there is one of my hon. Friends who has both the courage and the determination to do the thing that he thinks necessary, it is the present Secretary for Mines, and I hope that, after the tests which have been made, both in the laboratory and in various coal mines, he will analyse the two risks, and will finally make up his mind that the lesser risk will be to insist upon the use of gas alarms, which will always stand on guard and tell the workmen whether gas is present or not. That will eliminate the possibility of victimisation of mine workers, and will probably save very many lives by obviating future explosions; and it will also give effect to the continual promises that have been made from 1922 to 1929, that everyone would do everything possible to bring about more safety, instead of which there are more deaths and non-fatal accidents to-day than ever before. Therefore, I appeal to my hon. Friend to look into this automatic gas alarm from all points of view, and to give it his favourable consideration.

WOMERSLEY: I should like to supplement by a few words the remarks of the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I have a great interest in this subject, because as a boy I lived in a mining district and went to school with miners' sons, and I know a good deal about their difficulties, and also their sorrows when the bread-winner of the family has been killed in an explosion in the pit. I agree that since that time there have been vast improvements. I myself, within the last. 18 months, have visited one of the most up-to-date pits in the country, and I can assure those practical mining Members who have been speaking to-day that was astounded at the difference between the up-to-date mine of to-day and those I visited in my early days in the West Riding of Yorkshire, many of which are now closed down.
Some time ago, with other Members of the House, I attended a meeting upstairs to witness a demonstration of the ap-
pliance of which the hon. Member for the Don Valley has spoken, and it seemed to me that it was indeed a very efficient appliance. The decision of that question had, of course, to be left to people more expert that myself, but I did feel that the inventor of that apparatus was not getting a fair chance from the Department, judging by the statements made at that meeting, and also by answers given to questions in this House. I am glad to say that the latest information I have received is that the Secretary for Mines has taken an interest in this matter, and has authorised 25 tests of this apparatus during the last few months. I understand that those tests have been highly satisfactory, and, as the Miners' Federation have declared emphatically that the last three explosions could have been prevented if such an apparatus as this had been in use, I think an overwhelming case has been made out for at any rate something more than mere experiment in this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give some information about the tests that have been made, and tell us whether he intends to do something more than merely approve of the apparatus.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I hope that the House will forgive me for having taken leave of absence, but I had to attend a very important conference on an aspect of the coal industry which at the present moment is calling for our urgent attention, and, therefore, I was unable to listen to some of the speeches in this discussion. Notes have, however, been handed to me of the points raised, and I shall endeavour to deal faithfully with the questions which have been put.
7.0 p.m.
May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Sutton) on the rare ability with which he stated his case? He need not reproach himself for submitting this Motion, with which I am in hearty agreement. I am just as anxious as any miner or other Member in this House to promote the well-being of the mining industry and the safety of the miners, and I desire, as a line of approach to a solution of the safety problem, to secure the co-operation of both sides of the industry, and to focus the attention, not only of mining officials, but of miners themselves, on the various
aspects of this problem, more particularly in relation to the proper observance of the regulations laid down by the Department. Hon. Members have used figures which I do not seek to question. I am more than familiar with statistics relating to the mortality rate among miners, and the remarkably high accident rate. I confess to being deeply concerned about the matter, and more particularly because I detect in recent years not a diminution but an increase, however slight, in the rate. A perusal of the figures over a period of years—for example, from 1924 to 1929—convinces me that, although progress has undoubtedly been made in the direction of promoting safety, we cannot regard the existing position with complacency. Perhaps I may be allowed to submit certain figures to the House. In 1924, the accident rate per 1,000 persons employed above and below ground was 158.85; in 1925 it was 159.29. It is quite useless to give figures for 1926. In 1927 there was a further increase, the figures being 167.20, in 1928 a further increase to 170.01, and in 1929 it was 181.39. As regards the mortality rate per 1,000 persons employed, it rose from 98 in 1924 to 1.11 in 1929.
That is a remarkable state of affairs. I am far from complaining about the orthodox methods which have been employed by the industry, and, indeed, by the Department in recent years They have all tended to promote greater safety, but, relatively speaking, we find in the figures I have just presented a higher accident rate and a higher mortality rate, and in my view much too high a rate in the circumstances. If we are to approach this problem with a view to—I will not say a complete solution—as complete a solution as can be found, we must, in my judgment, first ascertain the cause of the accidents. To do that we must study the nature of the accidents. I have recently, in my spare time, found it possible to analyse the principal types of accidents occurring in the mines. I find that the majority of accidents occur from falls of ground, falls of roof and side. The second main cause of accident, which applies equally to the mortality rate, is haulage. The third is due to explosions of coal dust or fire-damp, and these are relatively low. It is true, as the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) said, explosions are spectacular
and focus attention on the need for promoting greater safety in the mines of the country, whereas, every day in the mines, there is a frequency of accidents which excite no particular comment, but which are just as dangerous and just as fruitful of dire results to the miners and to their families as the accidents which are accompanied by explosions.
Much can be said about the methods now in use. I do not desire to stand at this Box defending the existing methods, in face of the challenge presented by hon. Members and the challenge frequently presented by those in the industry outside. I am not concerned about these challenges or about the adoption of orthodox or conventional methods, or, for that matter, about defending what is now being done, except to say that I believe considerable progress has been made, and that no complaint can be laid at the door of the Inspectorate of the Mines Department. What I am concerned about is how to find a remedy. Seeking for a remedy, I decided that the first thing required, in the circumstances, was to secure the greatest measure of cooperation in the industry. I succeeded in sonic measure. Although both sides in the industry occasionally have little disputes and come to grips about wages, hours and matters like that, there is no difficulty at all in securing co-operation and the most complete harmony in relation to this problem of safety.
As far as the employers are concerned, there is every reason why they should cooperate. It so happens that they are responsible for the payment of compensation, for the mining industry undertakes compensation risks in large measure. I find that they paid in 1928, the year for which I have figures, in compensation £3,026,678, and I understand that is almost 50 per cent. of the total amount paid in workmen's compensation in the seven great groups of industries in this country for which returns are obtained under the Act of 1925. It means something like 3d. per ton of coal. When we speak of the burdens resting on the coal industry we might consider that particular burden. Therefore, it is very natural that the owners should seek to co-operate with the others in the industry with a view to removing that burden, and not increasing it. I ventured, therefore, to ask the Miners' Federation to meet me and discuss the
problem. As a result, they agreed to set up a sub-committee to act with officials of my Department. That sub-committee has already dealt with a variety of subjects.
Perhaps I may deal with a number of the subjects discussed by the joint committee, because it refers to matters raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I secured the appointment of the Committee only recently, and they have already discussed—although I have not found time to attend the meetings, I have had reports—emergency exists from conveyor faces, and I understand have found considerable difficulty in coming to a decision on that point They also discussed accidents at road heads, maintenance of electrical coal-cutters, signalling along conveyor faces, support of roof and sides at gate-ends, the lighting of conveyor faces, a subject to which I hope I may have time to draw attention later, the Ringrose Fire-Damp Indicator, on which I hope to have something to say later, shot-firing devices, accidents at the coal face, and the strength of the mines inspectorate. We leave nothing out. They can raise any question they like.
Then we asked the Mining Association to co-operate with us. I am bound to say that they responded most readily and cordially. I had no difficulty whatever in securing their co-operation. They set up a sub-committee. We have had only one meeting to date, because it was set up rather later than the joint committee associated with the Miners' Federation. They have dealt with silicosis, the proposed amendments to the compensation scheme—although the Mines Department has nothing to do with compensation, it has something to do with the investigations relating to silicosis—underground haulage accident research, pit ponies, the activities of animal welfare societies, humane horse killers, magneto exploders for shot-firing, a most important question in relation to the number of accidents attributed to shot-firing. This co-operation will continue. I do not know how long it will go on before definite results are reached. It seems to me that, if we attempt to hasten a decision we shall destroy the co-operation which is so essential if we are to secure fruitful results. I do not want at this stage to
press either side unduly in the direction of reaching decisions, although where-ever we see points of agreement, we shall utilise them. I am not only hopeful that I shall secure the co-operation of both sides for the purposes to which I have referred, but I hope to get them meeting together and discussing these matters across the table with the officials of the Mines Department.

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: Are the non-ferrous mines like tin and lead represented, or only coal mines?

Mr. SHINWELL: We are dealing with coal mines alone. The Mining Association and the Miners' Federation of Great Britain do not deal with these non-ferrous mines, but I should be very happy, if they requested me, to give consideration to the non-ferrous mines. Arising from this co-operation, I think it desirable to have more education in relation. to safety. Some references have been made to the conference held at Newcastle on Saturday. I was grievously disappointed at not being able to be present. I understand the conference was of a most enthusiastic character, produced very useful contributions in relation to safety questions, and was of great value to the officials of my Department. I am hoping later to promote similar conferences in other parts of the coal fields in the hope not only of focussing attention on the primary need for ensuring greater safety in the mines but—I say it with the greatest care and tact which are required it such matters—in the hope of inducing miners to exercise rather more care themselves.
There can be no doubt that one cause of accidents in mines—it is not the primary cause, but is only one of the causes—is the familiarity with the conditions. I know that men have to earn a living and are to some extent compelled, because of the piece-rates operating or for other economic reasons, with which many of us are familiar, to hustle and take undue risks. Some day I hope the industry will be so prosperous, and living in such a state of complete harmony, that there will he no need for men to hustle and bustle in order to earn a living in the mines. But it is essential to promote greater care, and I hope that this Conference will in effect, if I may say so to the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown), who raised
the point of a Safety Week, to some extent take the place of such an organisation and do a great deal of good. At all events, I hope very shortly to receive complete reports of what occurred at the Conference and to take careful note of the discussions that ensued upon the speeches made by the officials, and, if I detect in the discussions any points that might be used by the Department for the purpose of promoting greater safety, hon. Members may rely upon my support in such a case.
I want to come to rather more constructive points. It may be said, "This is all very well; you are only doing what has been done before"—that is true in a large measure—"but what about new regulations? What about the consolidation of the Mines Acts?" I have given that question a certain amount of attention, but it is impossible at this stage to promote further mining legislation. I have a shrewd suspicion that the House has had enough of it for the time being, but if, later on, we find that the House is in a mood to stand a little more, I am quite willing to consider that matter. As regards consolidating the Mines Acts, I would remind hon. Members that the best approach in that direction is to secure the co-operation of both sides. If we secure that, we can be assured of support.
We have succeeded in taking a definite step in one particular direction. I refer to more efficient illumination in the pits, and I approach this aspect of the subject by making particular reference to that most painful disease, prevalent in the industry, called nystagmus. About the facts I shall not speak, but so far as research has gone, although there is a difference of opinion, it is generally agreed that nystagmus cases are attributable to deficient lighting. It has been suggested that to some extent they may be due to the stooping posture adopted by miners, and the gassy condition of the pits. That may he so, but the bulk of scientific opinion on this subject holds the view that inefficient lighting is the primary cause. Therefore, we are devoting some attention to the question of better illumination, and I want to read to the House very shortly—and I take this opportunity of making the announcement for the first time—a summary of the draft Order that we propose to submit to the industry for their
discussion and, we hope, for their endorsement.
These new proposals in relation to mine lighting aim at a general improvement in the standard of lighting in three principal directions. First of all, there is the raising of the minimum candlepower standard of miners' safety lamps—not only the flame lamp, but the electric lamp also. Then we propose to provide a relaxation in the present drastic statutory restriction upon methods of lighting other than safety lamps. That is a subject that is full of difficulties, because there is, as everybody familiar with mining is aware, a dispute as to whether the use of electricity in the pits is desirable, and I am speaking of electric lighting. Then we propose to secure, if we can, definite provision for a reasonable standard of surface lighting, which hitherto has not been regulated by law, except for railway shunting operations.
I have not the time to give the figures now, but we are faced with a considerable number of accidents and fatalities on the surface, many of them due, no doubt, to faulty lighting. We propose to proceed at once with this draft, and to submit it to the industry, hoping for their consent and support, not only with a view to dealing with the accidents that are due to faulty lighting on the surface, at the coal face, and on the main roads in the mines of this country, but also with a view to making a definite attack on the problem of nystagmus; and I hope we shall receive, when the matter comes before both sides in the industry, a very large measure of support.
I want to deal with a number of questions that have been raised, and consequently I am unable to proceed, in the time at my disposal, to all the other constructive measures that we propose to put into operation, but, briefly, we propose to deal with the qualifications of colliery officials. That answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) that we must raise the standard of technique and that we must raise the qualification of mine officials generally. It is proposed to consider, and possibly to adopt, the majority of the recommendations contained in the report presented by Sir Thomas Holland's Committee, and I hope
to be able to do something on those lines very shortly.
There is a further point, in relation to the question of the Inspectorate. It is alleged that the Inspectorate is not sufficiently numerous and that we ought to add to it. I can only remind the House that in 1924 I appointed 12 additional inspectors, and I understand that five extra inspectors have been appointed since, but in my judgment, instead of appointing new inspectors at this stage, we ought to relieve them of some of their present work which has no relation to safety at all. Take, for instance, the constant investigations in relation to overtime. I am hoping, as a result of setting up new machinery in relation to overtime complaints, to relieve the inspectors of many of their present functions in that connection and that is the general line that I hope to take as regards the Inspectorate, but, if I find it necessary to appoint more inspectors for one purpose or another, I shall, of course, give the question very careful consideration.
There are one or two other points that have been raised, but the most important, in my view, is that relating to the employment of boys in the mines of this country. I confess, frankly, that if I had my way, I would prohibit the employment of boys in mines, certainly under the age of 16, but I must remind hon. Members that there are economic causes operating which cannot be ignored. It is perfectly easy to say that Northumberland shows a very high rate of accidents among boys—most objectionable and most appalling it is, and I do not seek to defend it for one moment—and that we should prohibit the employment of boys in that particular area. Apart from lack of time and the difficulty of securing legislation at this time, it is the fact. that boys have to he found some employment. When you come along and increase the school-leaving age, it is another matter, but for the moment boys who leave school at the age of 14 must secure employment of some kind, and the only employment to be found in mining areas is mining employment. To say to these boys, "You must not go into the pit at that age" is simply to place them on the street, doing nothing, a hindrance to themselves and to their parents.
I propose to take another course in the meantime. I believe that it is possible to train the boys, and, in response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Clayton, as regards the prohibition of the employment of boys under 16 in. Germany, I think he was hardly accurate. I happen to know the facts. The Rhenish Westphalian Syndicate hat, an apprenticeship scheme which provides certain work on the surface for boys between 14 and 16, but, generally speaking, throughout Germany boys are employed at the age of 14 onwards, and indeed there is a minimum in a Convention that has been accepted by Germany under which the same condition applies. I hope to consider very shortly the possibility of establishing some form of training for boys, but I cannot do that without he full consent of the owners, and therefore it is all the more reason why we should attempt to secure co-operation.
There is a variety of other matters that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint asked that more money should be spent on research arising out of the Miners' Welfare Fund. Last year there was spent out of the Miners' Welfare Fund by the Safety in Mines Research Board more than £50,000 on research. There is research into explosions; we have an experimental station at Buxton; we have extensive laboratories at Sheffield; there is all the work that is being done—some through the universities—under the supervision of Professor Wheeler and Dr. Coward; we have new investigations into falls of roofs conducted by Major Hudspeth, one of the most eminent mining engineers in the country; and we have investigation and research into wire ropes and haulage generally, and there is a considerable improvement as a result of these research investigations.
In the last minute of my time I will deal with the question of the use of gas detectors. A number of detectors have been placed before us for our approval, but I can only speak of one. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). As a result of a conference with the Ring-rose Detector firm, and the officials of the Safety in Mines Research Board, I succeeded in settling the difference between them in relation to the testing
of the Ringrose Detector. I am glad to say that the Safety in Mines Research Board have now agreed to apply further tests. These have been referred to by one of the speakers to-day. I shall do all that I can to see that practical tests are secured at the earliest possible moment, and I can assure my hon. Friends that if I find that the Ringrose or any other detector can be used to benefit the miners, and to secure greater safety in the mines of the country, either by a compulsory order or by inducing the owners to accept it voluntarily, I shall certainly take action.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House deplores the heavy loss of life and the large number of nonfatal accidents in coal mines and urges the Government to take every possible measure for the protection of those engaged in this dangerous industry.

WOOLLEN TEXTILE INDUSTRY.

Mr. BEN RILEY: I beg to move,
That this House urges His Majesty's Government to take all practical measures for the reorganisation of the woollen textile industry in order to promote economic efficiency and prosperity.
Before adducing arguments for the Motion, I should like to read A telegram which I have received from my colleague, the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Turner), who is seriously ill, having recently undergone an operation. I am sure hon. Members on all sides will wish for his speedy return to work. It reads:
Regret being unable to second your Motion to-day. The woollen trade is more sick than I have known it in 60 years career as man and boy in the trade and am certain that it needs the aid of everybody to amalgamate their intelligence and powers to organise and restore it to anything in the nature of stability. All of us have many old notions to reconsider. Old policies and practices must disappear if they handicap this or any other industry. The aim of the industry should be to turn out goods and plentiful products and no country in the world with few exceptions has been able to equal or surpass us in our suitability for cloth production for climate, country, appearance and wear. I have no set notions but it may be well for the trade to gather together its best experts on all sides through its one-time superb joint industrial council, or in some other way, and try to arrive at some speedy report and recommendation.
I am sure we are all glad to have that telegram from my hon. Friend.
In submitting this Motion, I make no apology for bringing to the notice of the House the present condition of the woollen textile industry. It is one of the oldest industries of the country and one of its most important. There are engaged in it to-day approximately 250,000 work-people directly, and indirectly much larger numbers. Like many other industries, it has fallen on evil times, and, taking the latest figures, there are no fewer than 26 per cent. of the insured workers out of employment. There has also been a decrease in the volume of production since the War compared with the pre-War scale. There has also been a set-hack on the export side. Since 1918 no fewer than 476 firms have been closed down, and considerable numbers of the firms that are still going are suffering from severe financial stringency and difficulty. I submit that those are particular reasons for calling public attention to the matter.
The industry is almost exclusively confined to the West Riding of Yorkshire, in an area which comprises Bradford, Leeds, Huddersfield, Halifax and the surrounding districts, Colne Valley and Spen Valley. There are also a certain number of factories in Scotland and in the West of England. According to the census report of 1921, there were 259,000 employed, of whom 139,000 were in the woollen section and 120,000 in the worsted, and, of the total, 206,000 were employed in the West Riding of Yorkshire. According to the "Labour Gazette," in 1923 there were registered for insurance purposes 269,000. In July of this year the number was 240,000, which, on the face of it, would indicate a decrease of 29,000, but the figures may be somewhat misleading because in 1923 they included all persons in the industry from 16 years of age upwards, whereas the figures for 1930 only give persons from 16 to 64 years of age. I understand that will account for A difference of about 10,000. Making that allowance, 20,000 persons fewer are now employed than was the case in 1921. That is the first outstanding fact.
The next fact of importance is the course of unemployment since the conclusion of the War. According to the "Labour Gazette" for October of this year, of the 240,000 insured persons, 59,000 are registered as being unem-
ployed; in other words 26 per cent. It is interesting, in view of the proposals which have been put forward, and which may be put forward to-night by way of a remedy, to notice the course of the growth of unemployment since 1924. In that year, the percentage of unemployed was 7. In 1925 and 1926 we had abnormal circumstances. There was a dispute in the industry itself in 1925, entailing a stoppage for a number of weeks. In 1926 there was the General Strike. The figure of unemployment rose to 15 per cent. in 1925 and 16 per cent. in 1926. In 1927, when conditions had become somewhat abnormal, the figure was 9 per cent., in 1928 it rose to 12 per cent., in 1929 24 per cent., and in 1930 an average of 24 per cent. for the first three quarters of the year, while in the last quarter the percentage is 26 of the total number of persons employed. That presents a serious picture of the state of employment.
Side by side with the rising figures of unemployment there has been the closing down of a large number of factories during the last six or seven years. According to a report presented, I believe, to the Safeguarding Inquiry in 1929, from 1918 to 1924, 218 firms were closed down in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and from 1924 to 1929, a further 258 firms closed down, making a total of 467. It is high time that some action was taken to arrest this decay and to make some serious attempt to bring about some improvement.
What are the proposals that are put forward in that direction As I see them, there are three main proposals which have been so far advanced as a remedy for a situation the seriousness of which is not contested. In the first place, there is the proposal which is based on the assumption that the problem in the industry, the growth of unemployment and the closing down of factories, results from the importation of certain quantities of, generally speaking, cheap kinds of fabric against which the British textile manufacturer has so far been unable to compete, and, on that assumption, it is suggested that the line of solution is the imposition of a tariff, whereby the importation of these products should be prohibited and employment thus found for those who are out of work. There is
also the contention on the part of the manufacturers that wages are too high. This contention was seriously put forward by the manufacturers when they appeared before the Macmillan Committee in January last. They said that there must either be a substantial reduction in wages or the industry must bleed to death. Another proposal is that a solution should be sought along the line of the reorganisation of the industry with a view to reducing costs and stimulating the demand for goods.
I propose to examine these respective proposals. With regard to the contention that the industry is suffering from excessive imports which it is not in a position to meet, I should like to call attention to the fact that between 1924 and 1930 the average import of foreign textiles has worked out at 35,000,000 yards per annum. The highest figure reached since 1924 was in 1928 when it was 38,000,000 yards. Last year it was 37,000,000 yards, and this year, for 10 months, it is 33,000,000 yards, and may possibly amount to 37,000,000 yards. It is clear, therefore, that for the last two years there has been no increase in the amount of imported textile cloths. It was only in 1926 that a substantial increase took place after the great decrease in imports in the early years after the War. With regard to the argument that it is these imports which affect the condition which brings about unemployment, one must remember that, whereas for the last six years imports of foreign cloth have averaged only 35,000,000 yards, in the five years before the outbreak of war—or to be more correct, from 1907 to 1912—the average annual imports of foreign cloth were 78,000,000 yards. These figures show that the pre-War imports, when there was not the amount of unemployment which we are now experiencing, were double the present imports. The Balfour Committee, in dealing with the industry, recognised that fact, and made the following statement, which is to be found in page 199 of the report:
It may be said at once that any decline which has taken place in the home demand for British textiles is not primarily attributable in the Aggregate to the imports from abroad, since these are, on the whole, far below the level of the years immediately preceding the War.
I want to reinforce that statement by quoting details from the report on the
application for Safeguarding which came before the Safeguarding Committee in 1929. There is a table showing the relative positions of imported cloth and cloth produced in this country, firstly for the pre-War years, and secondly for the post-War years. It shows that in 1907 the amount of imported cloth was equal to 16.6 per cent. of the total production of cloth in this country. In 1928 the amount of imported cloth was only 9 per cent. of the production. It is therefore obvious that it is not the importation of cloth, which has diminished, which is the main cause of the situation with which the industry is faced at the present time. As a matter of fact, assuming that that was the problem which had to be met, one would have to remember that, if you could by means of a duty exclude the whole of the 35,000,000 yards of cloth and the manufacturers here could make the necessary amount of cloth to meet the demand for that type of cloth, the industry could not employ more than about 17,000 additional operatives. One does not object to an increase of 17,000 in the number of operatives employed, but it must be remembered that in October of this year 59,000 operatives were out of work. Therefore, if the whole of the imported cloth could be excluded the problem would still remain unsolved.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is the hon. Member referring to cloth yarn?

Mr. RILEY: To tissues only. There is a further argument which seems to be conclusive. Suppose that it were possible to exclude those imports, what would become of the 35,000,000 yards of cloth so excluded? It is not to he assumed that the foreign manufacturers would cease to produce such cloth. They would try and sell it elsewhere. If they could not sell it here, they would try and sell it elsewhere, and there would he very little doubt that the exclusion of the cloth by means of a tariff would accentuate the difficulties of an important part of this industry—the export trade. But, whereas we import an average of 35.000,000 yards a year, we exported last year 160,000,000 odd yards. It is in the export trade in which the real problem is centred.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the necessity for an increase of the export trade. Hon. Members will
find that the question of the British exports of textile cloth is dealt with in the Macmillan Report. In 1924, it is stated, we exported from this country 232,000,000 square yards of textile yarn and worsted tissues; I hope hon. Members will mark the figures. In 1925, the total had diminished to 187,000,000 yards; in 1926, it was 169,000,000 yards; in 1927, it was 179,000,000 yards; in 1928, it was 178,000,000 yards; and in 1929, it was 163,000,000 yards. In other words, in those six years there was a loss to the export trade of 70,000,000 yards of cloth, comparing the figure with that of 1924. It is in that direction that we have to look for a real remedy. The contention that a remedy is to be found in the application of a duty in order to deal with imports, I submit, does not meet the situation. It must be obvious that if the 35,000,000 yards which now come into this country are excluded we shall have to compete against those 35,000,000 yards in the export markets to which we send our goods. If we cannot beat them in our own country, how can we possibly beat them a thousand miles away? Such a course would further endanger our export trade.
The second contention, putting on one side the question of a solution of the textile difficulties by means of the application of import duties, is that wages are too high, and that this fact is endangering our export trade. What are the facts with regard to wages? In 1920 the standard wage for a man in the wool and textile industry was 87s. 9d. per week—it is true that I am taking the peak year—and for a woman 53s. 9d. There has been a series of reductions since then amounting to something like 60 per cent., and today the standard wage for a man employed in the wool and textile industry is 49s. 9d. per week and for a woman 29s. 3d. Have not the workers made sacrifices? I do not see how they can be called upon to sacrifice any more. No hope is to be found in trying to seek a solution by means of a further reduction in wages. As a matter of fact, at the beginning of this year there was a reduction in wages of approximately 10 per cent. and still unemployment has risen to the highest figure it has ever been, from 14 per cent. last year to 26 per cent. for the last quarter.

Sir ALFRED LAW: Is not the hon. Member aware that 1919 and 1920 were very abnormal years, and that the cost of living was very much higher than it is now?

Mr. RILEY: I would remind the hon. Member that I said that 1920 was the peak year. I have given the figures relating to the peak year and the figures up-to-date, showing the changes which have taken place.
I now come to the third proposal which has been made for meeting these difficulties. The solution is not to be found along the line of import duties, because the general conditions of trade indicate that that would be no solution at all. You cannot pursue indefinitely the demand for a reduction of wages. Then what is the remedy? I suggest to the House that the line of solution which is becoming more and more recognised by an increasing number of those who are in the industry as promising, is to get down to the economic problem of the industry. It is a question of reorganisation. It is a question of b reorganisation in the direction of establishing units for the central buying of raw materials, in the direction of the unification of units of production in the industry, and of organising the central markets.
8.0 p.m.
What are the facts of the case from the point of view of the present economic condition of the industry and of the size of the units in the industry? The industry has been run for very many years by very hard-headed people, individualistic in character and in attitude, and their units of organisation represent to a large extent that individual type of character. The textile industry to-day is managed very largely in the way it was managed in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Nothing substantial has been done to meet the great changes which have taken place. I hear an hon. Member on my right dissent from that, but what are the facts? In the Balfour Committee's report, there is printed a very illuminating table as to the size of units in the textile industry. From this table hon. Members may learn that there are 1,384 separate firms employing 167,000 operatives. The total number of operatives in the industry within the West Riding area is, roughly,
206,000, so that this total includes by far and away the major part of the operatives and the factories. The table says that in those 1,364 factories, which are typical of the industry, no less than 882 are factories employing less than 100 people, and 380 of those factories employ less than 20 people. It is quite true that of those 380, probably about 200 are small rag concerns in the Dewsbury and Batley areas. There are 280 firms which employ less than 200—between 100 to 200. There are 222 firms which employ from 200 up to 1,000 operatives, while only 14 firms out of 1,384 employ over 1,000 operatives. I submit that the trend of industry since the War, particularly in a highly technical industry like the textile industry, has been towards the elimination of small units and the amalgamation of larger units; the centralisation of buying on the one hand, of production on the other, and of marketing.
The Government would render great service to the industry if they would pay some attention to stimulating investigation into centralised co-operation on the buying side, the productive side, and the merchanting side. What is the position, for instance, on the buying side? Here is an industry which depends so much, and where the average firm in the industry depends so much, on the really economic buying of its raw materials, such as wool, dyes, and so on; yet it is so conducted that in those essential raw materials, which form something like 40 per cent. of the entire cost of production, scores of separate individuals are competing to buy in the same market from the same sellers. There is economic waste of their services, and the actual condition tends to increase the price which the vendor of raw materials is demanding from the buyer. That is not an economic method of carrying on the industry on the buying side. This also applies, in a technical sense, to the dyeing sections of the industry.
What I wish to say now does not apply to the worsted section, which is of a separate nature, but to the woollen side of the industry, which, roughly speaking, is the major half of the industry, at least in the Huddersfield and Colne Valley areas. The substantial firms involved have a dyeing plant attached to their manufacturing plant; it is a vertical pro-
cess, taking the whole of the raw stage, and going right through. Each of the firms has to buy the dyes, and anyone who has been associated with the textile industry knows perfectly well that some mistake, some lack of knowledge in the selection of dyes for special sellers, may handicap the manufacturer and land him in all sorts of difficulties. Everyone knows that the danger occurs of orders being executed, being sent to the merchant, and then being returned because the articles are insufficiently dyed. In present circumstances very few of these separate plants can afford the cost of a competent. chemist, but where that can be done economies are made and efficiency results.
I will give the House one instance only. In my own area, and within my personal knowledge, there is a woollen factory of substantial size, where the proprietor had the public spirit to engage the best, or at least adequate chemical service, and, on his own statement, he saves a salary of something like £800 a year on the investigation of dyes supplied to his works which he would otherwise lose because of the fact that they would not be properly analysed and properly supplied to order. It is obvious that all the individual factories cannot avail themselves of this knowledge, and there amalgamation and centralisation of buying would give to all the users in the industry a better chance than now obtains.
I want to refer to another fact in regard to the selling side. Within the West Riding area, where the cloth itself is produced, there is a well-known factory for mass production employing some 8,000 operatives. It is common knowledge in the West Riding that any producer of cloth who can secure the orders for the mass production of clothing such as is required by a plant employing 8,000 operatives, has got work for its staff to go on with. What do they expect? I give it as a sample of the lack of centralised buying and the disadvantage to which the industry is put, because it has not the sense to combine on its selling side. In this case—and it is a sample of many cases—the buyer of cloth asks for prices from various producers of cloth in the West Riding; samples are sent in, firms concerned are invited to quote their prices,
and one quotes against another, with the result that the manufacturers in the same industry and with the same interests are all competing against each other to get the order until the price is beaten down to the very bone. Would it not be far better for the industry to say, "Instead of this cut-throat competition, let us organise central marketing and eliminate unnecessary competition"? It is on those lines that there should come some solution, or an approach to a solution, of which there is no hope whatever in the direction of import duties or of seeking to reduce wages.
As a West Riding Member, I am encouraged in this by knowing that at present in the West Riding there is a receptive mind to the policy of applying to the textile industry the economies which alone can come from eliminating wasteful competition, uniting efficiency and adequate capital and so developing efficient management. In the last two or three years several conferences have been held to try to get. an agreement to carry out this policy. Only three weeks ago, an important conference was held in Leeds, at which a very important section of the woollen textile industry—the Come Valley section—were fully represented, to consider a proposal to unite the whole of the firms in that section of the industry. That is evidence that there is a receptive atmosphere towards this policy, and, if the Government, and Parliament as a whole would give encouragement to this tendency, it would he a step in the right direction. No one knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government that the men who are behind the textile industry of the West Riding are men of great individual characteristic's and very strong mind, and that they have resisted and will resist taking steps which I am sure ultimately they will be compelled to see are the only steps that they can take. What is required is that the atmosphere should be created to encourage every move that can be made to centralise industry and increase its economy and efficiency, in order that the demand for cloth may be increased.

Mr. LEACH: I beg to second the Motion.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. B. Riley) has painted a very dark and dole-
ful picture of the conditions in the woollen textile industry, with which I have been associated for some 40 years. It is an ancient and honourable industry, large fortunes have been made in it, and it has also proved the graveyard of many financial hopes. The hon. Member referred to the textile trader as a man of strong nature and strong will, and rather stubborn in character. I have found him to be distinctly mercurial; he is subject to violent fits of depression and, in corresponding days of prosperity, his whale effort in life seems to be to disguise any fraction of jubilation. He will never for a moment admit that he is doing well.
The textile trader of the West Riding has not a very good record in matters of public policy. Right from the beginning, when the Legislature attempted to improve the very bad conditions operating in the early stages of the textile industry of the West Riding, he fought tooth and nail to resist every improvement. Whether it was the curtailment of the labour of very young children, or the settling of the hours of women workers, or the fencing of dangerous machinery, or the obstruction of the right to fill the atmosphere with smoke, the textile trader was always on the wrong side. Fifty years 'ago, he frankly despised technical education. He himself was at that time largely uneducated, and he felt very little need for technical skill in his staff. But about that period a certain French menace grew up in the matter of a new form of dress goods, and the textile trader became alarmed. He did then one of the sensible things of his life by founding the first technical college in the city of Bradford. That provided the trade, for the first time, with a moderately efficient staff of designers and skilled workers, the menace developing from France was thereby successfully overcome, and the textile trade started an era of considerable prosperity. It is true that the textile trader still despises education. He bombards me, for instance, with resolutions from his chambers of commerce begging me to resist any increase in the school-leaving age.
Thirty years ago the textile trader universally was a Free Trader. He regarded the tariffists of those days as we nowadays regard the flat earth theory. During the War he developed
the worst possible side. In the moment of the nation's extremity he tried what. he could to gain all the exorbitant profits by supplying its needs. It is true that he could not deliver the goods but he passionately resented all forms of Government control which were designed to supply those goods, and in 1919 he managed to secure the abolition of the last vestige of Government control of the industry. Then there began an orgy of profiteering which has resulted in an evil name attaching to the City of Bradford that it is only now beginning to get rid of. The wool textile trader is not public spirited. He boycotts the local councils. He will not take his share in the local government of his area. He is not very renowned as a contributor to charities, with a few honourable exceptions. I remember the first public combine in the wool textile industry of the West Riding.
There has not been in the wool textile trader much co-operative instinct, but that combine, the first of its kind, was established a generation ago in the wool combing department of the textile trade. There came to the City of Bradford an unscrupulous company promoter who offered very high prices to the owners of wool combing establishments, and they were tempted and fell. It was not the co-operative instinct that was at work; it was the acquisitive instinct. The flotation was duly made, and was followed by a very serious smash. Charges of fraud were made and the matter was taken to the courts. A number of Bradford men, trusted public men, were severely censored by Mr. Justice Swinfen Early. The Wool Combers Syndicate had to be reformed, and it was reformed on a much more moderately capitalised basis. Then there followed the syndication of the Bradford and District. Dyers. The prices paid were extravagant, but the very able men at the head of that syndicate led it to prosperity by the exercise of their skill and they succeeded after a while in overcoming the very serious handicap of initial over-capitalisation.
I have been looking at the local stockbrokers' records, and I can discover only nine or 10 public limited liability companies in the whole of the wool textile industry. Tentative efforts were made years ago to amalgamate the weaving
departments of the West Riding, but all of them failed. The wool textile trader has not a cohesive frame of mind. He does not seem to have any use for amalgamations, and I think we may find in this fact one of the explanations for the prevailing depression, which the Mover of the Resolution has made so clear to us in the figures that he gave. The trade consists of multitudinous firms, mostly small ones, engaged in useless competition, minus any special knowledge of the markets or of the statistics which govern the industry. Statistics are not the forte of the wool textile trader. He objects either to the giving or the receiving of them. As an ilustration of that one need only go to the published monthly "Labour Gazette" which calls from the textile traders for returns of a statistical character as to their undertakings. Although these returns are entirely confidential, only about one-half of the traders take any trouble to fill in the forms.
The trade is infested with middlemen in all its varying branches. It possesses an excess of plant. It pays, as the Mover of the Resolution clearly proved, far too low wages. I note that in the November "Labour Gazette" the figures for 140,000 workers show a total weekly wage of £259,000 giving per head an average wage of 37s.

Captain WATERHOUSE: How many juveniles and girls are included in those figures?

Mr. LEACH: They include the whole staff, not only juveniles but the managerial and the higher paid staff and the whole of the skilled members. We have to remember that it is only the best employers who fill in the forms. If the whole 100 per cent. of employers filled in the forms, the 37s. would undoubtedly be considerably less. The productive and artistic side of the wool textile industry has of late years considerably improved. T believe it is true to say that. the West, Riding products are ahead of any other in the world. Any Continental buyer would freely admit that, if the question were put to him.
There is no doubt that the War sapped the morale of the textile trader. In 1919–20 he was making fabulous profits during those boom years. His acquisitive instincts had the fullest play and he
became positively greedy, but he also became a much worse business man. I do not know that we can attach over much blame to the textile traders in the remarkable situation which the years 1910–20 gave them. Every rule of competitive enterprise was turned upside down. Clients who had been in the habit of keeping up a lordly aloofness and superiority were now on their knees begging him to take their orders, never mind the price. All this unfitted the textile trader for the future years of adversity which unfortunately he had to experience. In 1919 he filled the streets of Bradford with his motor cars and Bradford came to have the dubious honour of being the city with the largest number of motor cars in relation to population in the whole of the country, not excluding London. Later on there came the slump.
The four years stoppage of exports during the War, which was, almost complete, cost the wool textile industry very dear. Foreign clients, deprived of their sources of cloth from Great Britain, had to make shift to find their own means of supplying themselves and those methods have persisted ever since. They are now doing that on a scale far greater than ever before. Foreign Governments and the Dominions Governments have fostered these new efforts of textile production on the part of their peoples and have increased their tariffs very heavily against the West Riding productions. The natural result of that is that exports have been steadily dwindling, both foreign and those to our relations in the Dominions, who are taking their own home production to a greater percentage than before notwithstanding the fact that this home production is a great, deal inferior to what they have been receiving from this nation. These circumstances are undoubtedly depressing but what is the textile trader doing in regard to them? I think he is showing that he has completely lost his nerve. He is not reorganising his forces; indeed, he is calling for help in three separate directions. For the first time in 150 years in a developed wool textile industry he is begging for tariffs. He has not explained to us how a system of tariffs is going to regain his lost exports.
In 1925 the manufacturers of the West Riding invited the trade unionists repre-
senting their employés to join with them in an application for safeguarding certain of their products. They met with a refusal. They had to go alone, and they were turned down; and there can be no doubt that the trade union refusal to co-operate with them was a powerful factor in that turning down process. Then they adopted new tactics of a rather more subtle kind. They caused the suggestion to be broadcast that a 48 hours week, which is not statutory to this day, was imperative. They said that circumstances might arise in which they would be forced to go back to the 55½ hours week and then they put in an application for a wage reduction of 10 per cent. The cunning suggestion was made that a wage reduction was the sole alternative to tariffs on foreign imported cloth. Time was given for this cunning suggestion to sink into the minds of the trade unions in the textile area and then they were invited to a conference on wage reduction. Simultaneously with that invitation to a conference about wage reduction a second application for Safeguarding was contemplated and made known, and again the co-operation of the trade unions involved was invoked.
These kind of tactics had their effect. Without taking any plebescite the executive of the national association of unions in the textile trade decided by 15 to nine to co-operate with their employers in asking for a atriff on imported textiles. At once the dyer section of the employés, representing 5,000 workers, drew out of this co-operative effort and even the Bradford and District Trades Council, which consists of 89 branches, large numbers of which are textile branches, in a discussion on the whole matter on 20th December, 1928, repudiated utterly and completely any notion of co-operating for such a purpose, indeed, the principle of co-operation for securing safeguarding measures received only seven votes. This was rather a blow to those officials of the textile unions who had too hastily gone into this co-operative affair and they issued a statement in which they said that the sole issue was tariffs or lower wages. They have lower wages, and if we are not very careful they may get tariffs as well. The proceedings at the Board of Trade inquiry on the matter of Safeguarding which followed later re-
duced the proposition to a ridiculously simple issue. All questions about the effect on the community, the exporting power of the nation, the effect on our access to foreign markets and possible retaliatory tariffs, as well as all questions affecting the rights of consumers were ruled out deliberately and frankly. The committee which was set up, and which reported in 1929, referring to these considerations which I have just mentioned as having been ruled out said:
We fully recognise that questions of this order are reserved for the consideration of the authorities responsible for the final decision"—
Presumably that is the Government
and in any case the machinery of the present inquiry is not such as could be readily adapted for their elucidation. We only refer to them as illustrations of the view which we hold that the scope of our inquiry is necessarily restricted, and that therefore any finding at which we arrive cannot by itself be decisive either in favour of or against the imposition of a duty.
If ever a committee advised a Government to turn down their recommendation in advance that committee did so. The committee were asked, broadly speaking, to find an answer to the question: "Would a duty on Continental dress goods benefit the West Riding?" The most amateur member of the trade, without calling for any evidence at all on the matter, would not have much hesitation in giving an affirmative answer to so plain and simple a question. Of course it would. The committee also found in reference to the Continental dress goods coming into the country, that
roughly 30 per cent. would on the average have to be added to the prices of the foreign articles to equal the British prices.
So great a crime against the women of Great Britain was surely not to be ignored. They must be protected against such infernally low prices as that. The manufacturers asked for a 33⅓ per cent. tariff. They believed that it would do the trick and apparently, arithmetically, they were not far out, but the committee hesitated. Although they had made this clear statement about the goods from the Continent being 30 per cent. cheaper they finally settled on a recommendation in favour of a tariff of from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. but a very sensible Government turned down the recommendation.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That was before Shipley.

Mr. LEACH: I will deal with Shipley directly. The second appeal for help made by the textile traders had reference to the burden which, they alleged, was represented by their rate charges. The late Government took notice of this plaint and rid them of 75 per cent. of their rate charges and the, West Riding textile traders had a sum saved to them in annual rate costs, of £750,000. It was estimated by their own experts that this represented 3 per cent. on production. Another point made by the committee is of considerable interest in relation to the question of whether the industry is in quite so bad a way as some people represent it to be. On page 8 of their report, paragraph 25, they make this observation:
The aggregate yardage of retained imports of woollen and worsted tissues and the proportion of the home market supplied by ouch imports, give no indication of any abnormal growth. On the contrary, it is evident that the requirements of British consumers for woollen and worsted tissues, taken as a whole, are now being met in higher proportion by British manufacturers than was the case before the War. The figures of the ratio of retained imports to production show the same general trend.
That statement is exactly in line with the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. It indicates that the foreigners' hold on the British home market was being steadily loosened at the very moment when Safeguarding was being asked for. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) referred to Shipley. In the West Riding textile area there are 11 constituencies which may be regarded as predominantly textile in their electorate, and they return 14 Members. There is Bradford which returns four Members, and the others, returning one Member each, are: Batley and Morley, Dewsbury, Elland, Halifax, Huddersfield, Keighley, Shipley, Sowerby, Spen Valley and Colne Valley. In the 1924 Election there were recorded for Safe-guarding candidates 166,137 votes, and for Free Trade candidates 453,470 votes. In other words, for every four votes cast for Safeguarding 11 were cast against it, and not one solitary Safeguarding candidate was elected. It is true that the recent by-election at Shipley has altered that state of affairs by one repre-
sentative, but, even so, the figures which I have quoted and the percentage which have given are not materially affected. Even taking into account that by election there are about 11 votes for Free Trade against every four votes for Safeguarding.
The third direction in which the textile trader called for help has been referred to by the Mover of the Resolution. It was the direction of lower wages. This year he has achieved his purpose with a reduction all round of 9 per cent. Up to date that wage reduction has not helped him in the slightest degree. All three forms of help which he sought are bad. They have the effect of making other people pay for the textile trade depression and for the traders' own incapacity. Clearly, as the Mover of the Resolution has pointed out, Government action alone affords any hope of putting the textile trade back into that position which rightly it ought to occupy. The problem which the Government may some day have to tackle, I regard as coming under these heads: too low wages, excess of firms and plant, surplus middlemen, wasteful competition between those middlemen, and the lowered morale of the owners. I beg of the Government to examine the records of the War years when control existed and when there was set up in a very short space of time an amazingly efficient machine. It eliminated most of the evils with which the trade is now confronted and, if it had not done so, there is every reason to suppose that we should not have won the War. Why should there not be a Wool Board as there was during those War years, when we purchased all our supplies for the wool textile industry in bulk. I think we ought. to do so again. It was the crowning achievement of those years. I do not know of any other way in which we can eliminate waste, check speculation, steady prices and secure that cheapness of supply to which the trade is entitled. We ought to do all those thing.; again which we did during the War years.
I make no concealment of the fact that my goal for the wool textile industry is public ownership. I do not know of any other way to rationalise the wool textile trade. I think it is the only method of getting rid of wasteful competition, of
the parasitic middleman, of excessive plant and of the tired, golfing and motoring owner. We are learning the lesson that the profit incentive is dangerous. The British Broadcasting Corporation, the Electricity Board, the London Docks and the Carlisle drink plan indicate to me the proper line of advance for reforming the textile industry. Presently we shall come on to the export trade. with public utility boards under public ownership governing the whole operation. Just as in 1917 we discovered that this trade has supremely competent people in it, we shall still find them with us and we shall pull them out once more, and set them to the job of organising the whole textile industry. The Government may not find it possible to attempt a solution on those lines, however, much as they may desire to do so, but I am perfectly satisfied that some other early Government will do it.

Mr. LOCKWOOD: In rising to make my maiden speech, I am sure that I can rely upon the assistance of the House in what is an ordeal for a beginner. My experience in politics is very little, and on that account perhaps I may plead for the help of the House even more, seeing that until a month before my return I had never made a political speech. However that may be, the one thing in connection with which I am most sincere and desire to be most helpful is the trade and industry of this country, particularly the trade and industry of the district from which I come and which I represent. Although my experience of politics may be little, for close upon 30 years I have worked most intimately, almost day and night, in connection with the particular industry of which we are speaking, and I hope—and it is a sincere wish of mine—that the information and the opinions that I express will be of some guidance and usefulness to those Members who do not know as much about the trade as some of us do.
I have listened to speeches from hon. Members representing industrial constituencies connected with our trade, and before I go on I should like to say this: I was able to appreciate the line of the argument of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. B. Riley), and to follow out what he wanted in the end, which was somewhat within the terms of this Motion. I was able to snake nothing whatever of
the speech of the hon. Member for Central Bradford (>1r. Leach). On behalf of the people and the traders of the West Riding of Yorkshire, I immediately dissociate myself from all the deplorable sentiments which he expressed. He said that our manufacturers were neither philanthropists nor educationists; they were immoral—[Interruption.] He said that their moral had gone. I simply wish to make clear that I do not agree at all with that expression of opinion, because my experience of Bradford business men in the past has been that from these business men the majority of our civilian offices have been filled; but I leave that, and I come to the Motion.
I want to make another point clear at the outset. We on these benches are as solicitous for the welfare of the workers as hon. Members on the benches opposite, and, in considering a Motion of this kind, we are as desirous that nothing should be done to the detriment of our workers as they are. The most important matter to remedy in connection with this industry is unemployment. What is the position of this important industry? The number of insured persons in June, 1921, was 274,870. By August, 1930, that number had decreased to 239,030. That leaves us with a contraction in the industry of about 35,000. At the end of August, 1930, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury stated, 26 per cent. of the persons in the industry were unemployed, or a total of 63,566. I wish to state these figures again so that hon. Members will have them clearly before them after the digression of the previous speaker. We have, therefore, a contraction in the industry, by unemployment and by persons leaving the industry, of 99,406. If the persons engaged in the industry in June, 1921, were 224,000, it will he seen that there has been a contraction in one way or another of at least one-third. In Bradford alone 29,000 persons are unemployed, and in the constituency which I represent there are 8,000. In Bradford again, the number of looms which have gone out of action is one-third of the whole.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury has referred to the number of firms which have gone out of action by reason of liquidation, shortage of work, and one thing and another, and he has given what is not at all a gloomy picture of this industry. If we wish to get. an independent autho-
rity as to the position of the industry—because apparently it does not seem to be admitted—we find it in a report which was issued in February, 1930, in which this statement appears:
As a result of these inquiries, I have satisfied myself of the gravity of the financial position of the industry.
It goes on to say:
Nevertheless, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that, during the past five years, the financial position of the industry has become progressively worse, and has now reached a really critical stage.
Again:
In present circumstances, and upon its present basis, the industry is in a most unsatisfactory if not an actually dangerous position.
Upon that we all agree, and we have to try to find a solution which will put this industry upon a proper basis. We on this side, as well as hon. Members opposite, are desirous of doing our best in this connection. Our methods may differ, though we may be equally sincere in our aims. What is the position on the industrial side? Our exports have decreased to the alarming extent which has been described, and our imports have increased to an alarming extent, rising from 8,000,000 square yards in 1920 to 33,000,000 square yards. In contrast with that, Continental exports have not decreased but have risen. They have risen from 118,000,000 square yards in 1924 to 129,000,000 in 1930. The textile goods we import from abroad are equal, in yardage, to the whole of our export trade with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. To put the position in another way, the imports into this country equal our exports to China, Japan and the United States. I give those instances to the House so that when attempts are made to decry the volume of the import trade hon. Members may visualise the position we have to face. I have listened to the speeches with great interest, but I happen to be actively connected with this trade in many of its branches, not only on the manufacturing side but on the exporting side, and my practical knowledge leads me to differ entirely from the conclusions of the hon. Members who have preceded me.
I have described the state of the industry. What has caused it? The cause, primarily, is our antiquated system of Free Trade, coupled, no doubt, with
other factors, such as decreased consumption, an alteration in fashion, and one or two other matters of that kind; but, as before stated, the primary cause of the depression in this industry is our attachment, or the attachment of those at present in authority, to this antiquated system of Free Trade. In my view, and I speak as a practical man, there is no solution whatever for the distress in this trade except the protection of our home markets from the unfair and increasing foreign competition which assails us at the moment. The only other plan that can help us is to seek closer economic union with our own Colonies, in order to provide the expanding markets which we do not seem to find elsewhere.
9.0 p.m.
Why is it necessary that our industry, if it is to continue, should receive some measure of Safeguarding'? Because we are afflicted with competition from abroad which we cannot hope to meet, and which we on this side of the House do not wish to have to meet, because to meet it would mean the lowering of the standard of life of the workers, which is the last thing we shall advocate. We have to meet the competition of goods, coming in from countries where wages are on the following scales: In France they pay 50 per cent. less in wages than we do, in Belgium 55 per cent., in Germany 80 per cent., and in Italy, Poland and Czechoslovakia 40 per cent. It is impossible for us to manufacture goods to be sold in a free and open market while paying our present wages when foreign goods manufactured on the wage basis which I have indicated are free to come into this country. In addition to that our manufacturers have a very much increased burden of taxation to bear, which also militates against our meeting foreign competition. Another reason for the present condition of the industry is that foreign. countries, which raise tariffs against our goods, are determined on no. account to permit us to send them goods which they can manufacture for themselves. I would draw the attention of the House to an interview with the hon. Member for Batley (Mr. B. Turner); we are sorry to hear he is ill and hope he will soo recover. After his visit to Czechoslovakia, he said:
The Czechoslovenes are determined as far as possible to manufacture for them-
selves all the commodities they require. In such circumstances the openings for Bradford, West Hiding or British goods are very, very limited.
What is the good of talking about extending our markets in foreign countries if that is the spirit of those countries? While we are not raising tariffs against other countries, what is being done in the French Colonies? I have here a quotation from the "Yorkshire Post," which says that in French Indo-China they are submitting a proposal to in. crease the duties on textiles against us.
As to methods for remedying the present state of affairs, if those primarily concerned with the industry are of one opinion, why should we prevent the carrying out of what they know will improve the industry? Both employers and employed are equally emphatic that the remedy of Safeguarding should be applied. The report of the Safeguarding Committee in 1926 has been referred to. The application for Safeguarding for this industry was not granted then because it was said at that time that the unemployment was not of such a nature as to warrant Safeguarding. But take the 1929 report. Every question in the White Paper which it was necessary to answer in the affirmative in support of such an application was answered; and every criticism which has been raised by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) was dealt with in that report. It was reported that the industry was efficient, that there was gross unemployment, and that there were coming into this country goods which had been made under rates of wages with which we could not compete. In fact, the whole series of questions was answered. That was a Government inquiry, and a recommendation was made in favour of the imposition of a duty, and I understand that if the late Government had continued in office a duty would have been granted. Unless something is said to the contrary in the course of this debate, the responsibility for not putting that recommendation into operation and relieving this distress must be regarded as the present Government's.
I will now refer to a report issued by the National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade. It has a membership of 151,900, and it refers to the particular remedies for relieving this industry. I should like to quote one or two passages
from this report in order to give an unbiassed and true picture of the opinions of those interested in this industry. It says:
During September, 1927. negotiations took place on the general wages agreement for the wool textile industry, and during the negotiations the trade unions submitted the following proposals to the employers.
One was the possibilities of restoring trade by Safeguarding. Further, on they say:
Not a single objection was laid against the proposal by any trade union affiliated to the Association.
The report goes on to deal with the unemployment question and points out how serious it is, and says:
The percentage figures of the trade union unemployed registering at the offices of the various unions largely exceed the official figures.
We agree, of course, with that. The report goes on to state:
The problem, therefore, was one that the unions had to face or follow the policy of inaction and allow the industry to languish.
That is the question which is before us to-day in a more acute form than ever. The report goes on to say:
In placing our views before you we must draw your attention to the fact that we started out convinced Free Traders brought up in that school, which made the task of adopting the role of impartial investigators extremely difficult ….We realised, however, that we had obligations to the people we represented …. We realised, however, that world conditions are constantly changing, and to make a fetish of a belief is wrong …. No longer can we claim to be the workshop of the world so far as textiles are concerned. Almost every country is producing and increasing their production year by year, thereby diminishing our foreign markets.
Those are all very pertinent remarks, and the report goes on to say:
In the places visited we were convinced that every effort was being made to capture the trade, yet imports were increasing year by year.
I am reading the findings of the trade unions whose representatives reported to their own members. They say:
Free Trade statements were submitted in evidence that the most up-to-date machinery was to be found in the industry coupled with efficient staffs, but in spite of these advantages, it was affirmed that on cloths up to 6s. per yard it was impossible to compete with foreign imported goods.
They further state:
As a committee, we submit that Safe-guarding, whilst not the ultimate remedy, will materially assist in this direction.
The concluding portion of the report says:
We have therefore come to the conclusion that unemployment in the wool textile industry has been, and is likely to be, accentuated by the importation of foreign dress goods, and we agree that this joint committee of employers and trade unions should support a further application for Safeguarding.
That application was made because the case was justified, and the recommendation for a duty was made. It is only right to say, in view of the statements which have been made in regard to production and the diminution of our export trade, that we who are concerned with the finding of employment for the workmen desire to do this to the best of our ability; and, furthermore, we desire to do it at the most remunerative rates of pay. We are anxious to do that, but, unless you can protect us from this foreign competition, it is hopeless to put this industry on a profitable basis.
There is only one other thing to which I must refer, and it is the necessity for a closer economic co-operation with the Dominions. It is my practical experience of trading with the Dominions that they are the best markets that we can find. They pay, and they are honourable with all their commitments and transactions, and in the course of the textile trade they have given to us in this country preferences which have been of the utmost value to us in maintaining our trade with the Colonies. Lately, higher duties have been made in Canada, and have seriously affected some of the business with which I am concerned. But my point is that had we tackled the Dominion Ministers properly, certain difficulties might have been avoided, and, on behalf of the woollen trade, I wish at once to say that we do appreciate most particularly the efforts of the Colonies and the Dominions to increase and maintain their trade with us, and, so far as they have done that, we in the woollen industry, we employers, dissociate ourselves fully and completely from the utterances made by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday last.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): It is merely for the pur-
pose of giving information to the House rather than making a speech, that I have risen. May I be allowed to compliment the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Lockwood) upon his maiden speech. I am sure that the House has been delighted to hear the hon. Member's point of view, which was stated with very great clarity, and I do not think that there is any question at all about the depth of his sincerity. While I must disagree with the hon. Member's conclusion, the House always appreciates speeches which bring a practical mind to bear on the question being discussed.
I would like to give the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley (Mr. B. Turner) and myself with regard to the wages of woollen workers on the Continent and to state one or two facts. When the first application for a reduction of wages was made to the Yorkshire textile workers, I gave them some advice. When I am not a Minister I am the international secretary of the textile workers, and it was my business to help any organisation in difficulties. The allegation was made that the reduction of wages was necessary because of the low wages and the long hours worked by the French. I am not arguing whether France which is a protected country, ought to have long hours and low wages. I leave that out of the question altogether. I advised that the best thing for us to do was to go to the North of France and learn on the spot what the conditions were, and then we should be in a better position to debate the question with the employers from actual knowledge rather than by accepting figures which might be accurate or inaccurate.
We found in the north of France that the wages were higher than had been stated, and that, on the top of the wages, family allowances were made and social insurances were given which added considerably to the wages. That threw out of perspective altogether the statements made about the rate of wages in the north of France; and it was also the case that, while the French hours had decreased by 12 per week, the French workers were better housed, better clothed and better fed than they were before the War. It may be perfectly true that their wages have not yet readied the standard of this country,
but it is also perfectly true that their conditions have enormously improved since pre-War days. I am not arguing as to other factors. There are many factors, no one is enough to explain all the circumstances.
The same thing took place when the second application for a reduction of wages was made by the employers, but this time it was the German woollen workers who were receiving these low wages and working these excessive hours. We went to Germany in exactly the same way, and we found on the spot, from actual wages books and weavers' price tickets which we saw when we visited the firms, that the hours in Germany had decreased more than our hours had from pre-War standards, that the wages figures given to the Yorkshire textile workers' representatives by the employers were minimum wages, below which a, worker was not allowed to be paid, and that, on the actual piece rates, the actual wages earned were in nearly every case double or more than double the wages that had been stated to the Yorkshire textile workers as the wages of the German textile workers. I myself saw the books, the weavers' tickets, and the weavers' wages sheets, and I was able to convince myself that the statements about the wages of the German textile workers were quite inaccurate.
I have risen for the purpose of giving this information to the House, because, if we are to argue these matters, we had better argue them on facts if we can get them. Another thing that I should like to say is that, as no one knows better than the hon. Gentleman, the woollen industry of Reichenberg, in Czechoslovakia, is almost as old as the woollen industry in Yorkshire. No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that it is a very highly developed industry, which has come down from father to son, exactly as in Yorkshire. Had I risen for the purpose of entering into arguments, I would have liked to have dealt with my hon. Friend's remarks on the question of Free Trade and Protection, but that is not my business, and it would be robbing the private Members of their time were I to do so. I merely rose to state a few facts that would have been stated by my hon. Friend the Member
for Batley had he been able to be in his place.

Mr. ROY BIRD: I should like to take up one or two of the points which were mentioned by the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion. It seemed to me that the Mover divided his argument under three headings, and gave what he thought were the three remedies for the present condition of trade in the West Riding. Taking them in the order in which I think he gave them, they were tariffs, low wages, and amalgamations; or perhaps I might classify them under different headings, in the same order, as the policy of the Conservative party, the policy of the Liberal party, and the policy of the Socialist party.
The hon. Member dealt with the question of tariffs very shortly. He said that tariffs would not be a remedy, because, if we looked at our home consumption and our export trade, we should find that the export trade was worse off now as compared with the home trade than it was a few years ago. In saying that, he did not agree with what was said by the Seconder, who suggested that the reason for the large drop in our exports was that tariffs were put on by other countries. It seems to me to be quite clear from these statements, although apparently the two hon. Members do not agree, that if you can have some weapon with which, I will not say to fight, but to argue with your foreign competitors, and come to some bargain with them by threatening to put on tariffs in this country, you will very soon come to some agreement under which there will be fair trade, and not Free Trade, between all the countries.
The hon. Member rather led the House to believe that there had been no amalgamations in the textile trade, but that is quite untrue; there are several big amalgamations in the textile trade. I do not think that even the Mover would suggest that the big units in the textile trade are doing any better business than the smaller ones. In fact, the contrary is rather the case, because it will be found that in small units there is more personal attention and keener buying and selling, and that a man has, perhaps, more brain-waves in a smaller business than in a bigger one—he gets on to a special line. In many mills in the West Riding—

Mr. B. RILEY: Are there no small firms which have closed down, as distinguished from larger ones?

Mr. BIRD: Where small firms have had to close down, it has perhaps been due to the fact that, as I am prepared to admit, their financial resources have not been as great as those of the larger ones, since the banks have not given them so much credit. They are not so deeply in the ribs of the banks, and, therefore, the banks do not keep them alive; but, in the case of many big amalgamations, the banks are so much involved that they do not let them go. It is untrue to say that the depression in the textile trade would be met by amalgamation.
My hon. Friend said that if you had amalgamation you would be able to buy better, but it seems to me that if, as my hon. Friend said, there was competition in the market among the people who were bidding for the raw material, prices would go up. That, however, is not what is happening. On the contrary, prices of raw materials are dropping every day, and that is half the trouble in the trade at the present moment. When a man takes an order, and thinks he will be all right in buying at a particular price, he finds that the price of his raw material has gone down, and someone else comes in and competes against him at a lower price. Even from that point of view, amalgamations will not assist at all.
As my hon. Friend continued his argument, it rather made me think that he was not really advocating amalgamations in the sense in which we think of them, but that he was getting almost to nationalisation of the textile industry. I do not think that my hon. Friend would even deny that. [Interruption.] He says that he would not. He visualises the day when the textile industry will become a Department of Whitehall, and then, he thinks, better buying will be possible, and that there will be better selling and better attention to business, than under present conditions. There he and I part company—

Mr. RILEY: If I might again interrupt the hon. Member, that was not my argument at all. I was not arguing the need for nationalisation, but was arguing the need for centralisation of economic units.

Mr. BIRD: I think it must have been the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) who interjected that that was the idea. At any rate, if my hon. Friend has not that in his mind, some other hon. Members seem to have it at the back of their minds as the ultimate aim of the Socialist party. I am grateful for this opportunity of stating the view of the textile workers in my Division—it is not only the view of the employers, but is the view also of the trade union leaders, who are not politically inclined to the extent that some hon. Members in this House are. They look at this question from the point of view of their members. They say "Something is wrong in the textile trade. We have gone into the matter, and we think that the best chance we have is to safeguard the products of our members' labour." I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has not turned up to take part in this debate, because he is a Safe-guarder and also a trade union leader. He knew what was best for the lace trade, and I consider that he might have turned up to-night and given us the benefit of his experience in the lace trade, so that we could get some idea from the Labour side of what they really think when it comes to a practical point of view.
Possibly the difficulty we are under at the present moment is that people are dealing with this matter from a political point of view instead of a business point of view. I congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Lockwood) on the manner in which he approached this subject. I should like to add my word to that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and to say that the sincerity of his remarks was clear to everybody. He spoke with knowledge of the subject, and I feel very proud to have been one of his sponsors when he was introduced into this House. I will conclude by saying, that hon. Members on the other side should consider this matter from the point of view of their constituents, and not from the point of view of their Front Bench, which, after all, is not a Socialist Front Bench, but is largely composed of renegades from the Liberal party—what I may call the cuckoos in the nest—and if only they would rid themselves of them, as the Liberal party has done, I think Safeguarding would have a better chance
of succeeding in this country and the textile workers in the West Riding and throughout England would have more hope of prosperity in the near future.

Mr. JOWETT: I desire to associate myself with the congratulations to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Lockwood). One would hardly have guessed by his manner and the orderliness of his speech that it was a maiden effort. This Motion is in two parts, first, to call attention to the present condition of the woollen industry, and then to call for reorganisation. I have been associated with the industry for a great many years, and, indeed, I first went into it at the age of eight, so that I can claim to have a very intimate connection with it. The present condition of the industry has been very carefully described from different quarters and different points of view this evening. As indicating the present condition of the industry, I may mention that whereas in 1920 there were 30,500 looms running, it is estimated that at present there are only some 11,000. That is one aspect of it, but a far more serious aspect, from the point of view of the working classes, is that the industry has failed grievously to maintain the workers employed in it, and has left them in a parlous condition, many of them having spent nearly a lifetime in it. Indeed, it is not to be wondered at that there is a great diminution in the export trade in which we are interested in the West Riding.
Within the period that I have known this industry, one firm of makers of machines and looms in that district sent no fewer than 20,000 looms into one small foreign country, Belgium, and wherever on the face of the globe civilisation is in existence, textile machinery has been sent during the past two generations in great quantities. We may reckon on it that that machinery has not been purchased for ornament, but for use. The inevitable result is a shrinkage in our foreign markets and in our Colonies and Dominions. In that connection I may observe that the hon. Member for Shipley seemed to hope that by some policy or other we could restore the textile industry and its exports to the Dominions. If there is one thing which is certain as anything can be in our industrial arid commercial life, it is that these Dominions
have deliberately made up their minds that they are going to encourage and foster their own textile and other industries and to make themselves independent as far as possible of imports of manufactured goods.
Whatever policy may be advocated wits regard to tariffs or Preference, it is as certain as anything can be that the Australians and the New Zealanders, who have the raw material for woollen textiles in their own country, will not continue sending raw materials 7,000 miles across the water to be combed and spun, woven and dyed, with whatever profits mat, be taken in those processes, and the cost of carriage, forwards and backwards. Surely, common sense will tell us that it will be their very serious endeavour to create in their own countries the plant and all that is necessary to manufacture these goods from their own raw materials. Therefore, in the long run, whatever may be the immediate position and result, we must face these facts, first, that our textile machinery and the knowledge which we previously monopolised are now shared in foreign lands, and that foreign markets must necessarily shrink in consequence; secondly, that in the Dominions, and in any land where the raw material is grown and produced, there will be inevitably a tendency to manufacture their own raw material into finished goods.
Another factor of very great importance in determining the conditions in the textile industry of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which has not been referred to in this debate, is the increasing burden of finance carried. The point, I am sure, will be clearly illustrated if I remind the House that France, by reason of her peculiar form of capital levy, has freed herself from something like four-fifths of her debt. Capital charges, mortgages, debentures, State debts, have been wiped out to a very large extent, freeing industry, municipalities, and State from charges that we ourselves are still bearing. Not only are we still hearing those charges, but our policy has been a distinctly opposite policy, and by restoring the gold standard and solving our financial problem in the manner indicated by the bankers, instead of reducing our indebtedness we have increased it.
I do not think it would be an extravagant statement if I said that at least 25 per cent. has been added to the finan-
cial burdens, not only of municipalities and State, but of every industrial concern by the appreciation of the British pound sterling, by reason of the conduct and the policy that I have mentioned. The effect, as I understand it, is that in selling textile products into any foreign country under present conditions, we have at least placed an additional burden on our own products equal to a tariff of 10 per cent., and there would be far more sense in relieving our products of the cost of that very costly financial operation than in placing tariffs on foreign goods without any knowledge of the effect of so doing.
But, after all, it is not the foreign trade that is the be-all and end-all in the production of textiles. I agree in attaching very great importance to the home trade, but what is it more than anything else that has destroyed and impaired the home trade? What is it but the poverty of the working classes of this country I can remember the time when, from quite a number of large merchant houses in Bradford, there used to go out travellers, at the beginning of every week, into the North-Eastern district of Northumberland and Durham, into the industrial districts of Scotland, of Wales, and the Midlands, returning at the end of each week with their wallets bulging with orders, not for a mere half piece of this pattern or that pattern, of this shade or of that shade, but for 10 pieces, 20 pieces, 50 pieces, 100 pieces—bread and butter trade, the foundation of the textile industry.
Do as you will to foster the luxury part of that industry—and it is very largely a luxury trade now—however successful our manufacturers may be in capturing the luxury trade, such as is shown in the windows of the large stores patronised mainly by the wealthy classes, if there is not the foundation of the ordinary, staple day-by-day wear of the common people, the looms of Bradford will be bound to suffer. There never can be such a thing as a restored Bradford industry unless the people can buy. We have gone on for years, with little or no attempt on the part of Governments to adopt any policy of resisting reductions of wages, with £600,000,000 less purchasing power for the working classes. Four-fifths of the expenditure in every working-class
household is on necessary things, on food, and clothing, and shelter, things that relate directly to the staple industries of the country, and there is no better way than by increasing the spending power of the people to restore such industries as the textile industry of this country.
Those with whom I am associated hold the belief that there must be some way of securing increased working class incomes and if in ordinary industrial conditions the worker fails to get higher wages, then it is the duty of this House to see that those people have money wherewith to buy clothes, food, and shelter, by rigorous taxation of that class which is more prosperous than ever it was before. I am not now referring to the industrial adventurers, but to the rentiers, the financiers, the share speculators, the bankers. Lay them under tribute and in that way put some spending power into the homes of the working classes.
I presume that the reorganisation that is referred to in this Motion means rationalisation. There is no more perfect example of rationalisation than is to be found in the Bradford Dyers' Association. It began it years ago. It is true that a far higher wage rate is being paid to a relatively small section of its workers, but there is a per contra in the amount of unemployment and short time, and one establishment after another is found to be either redundant or in same way unremunerative. This highly-rationalised establishment has been prosperous and rationalisation, no doubt, if it is carried into effect elsewhere will have similar effects. The Bradford Dyers' Association from 1922 to 1927 paid its ordinary shareholders in dividends 85 per cent. of the amount they had paid in and, in addition, distributed bonus shares to the amount of 60 per cent. In other words, it returned to the ordinary shareholders in bonus and dividend 145 per cent., nearly half as much again as they had invested. Woolcombers, another example of rationalisation, though not so perfect as the other, when it first gave notice of its attack on wages in 1927 had made six distributions of bonus shares since 1916, and no less than £50,000 more has been paid in bonus shares alone than the total issued capital.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is it not a fact that four-fifths of the original capital was written off?

Mr. JOWETT: That is a separate story and one which would not be creditable to those who floated it if it were told. When this firm pays 10 per cent., it is equal to 50 per cent. on the actual capital involved. Rationalisation inevitably means more unemployment, and it frequently means monopoly and monopoly prices, and the only alternative is organisation under State direction. In that connection, I want to mention a remarkable fact. When control was taken off wool, owing to the agitation of the wool merchants and traders, prices fluctuated to such an extent as to begin this demoralisation of the textile industry which has continued ever since. During the period of control, the price was kept fairly even, the disastrous results of over-speculation were impossible, and the trade was relatively prosperous, but after control was removed prices fluctuated as the result of speculation so that "sixties super tops" bumped up in two years' time from 3s. 7d. per lb. to Os. 4d. and fell back in another two years, leaving a trail of ruined speculators behind it. Until this trade is controlled through raw materials, and until the spending power of the working-class is increased so that they can buy the things they need, there will be no possibility of this great industry being restored to the position that it ought to hold.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The Motion calls on the Government to take practical steps to assist this industry, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, though I do not agree with all his conclusions, has drawn the attention of the Government very forcibly to the importance of the home market to this trade. In beginning his speech, he founded himself on two propositions both of which are incontrovertible; first, that countries overseas will tend more and more to manufacture for their own purposes, and, second, that owing to one cause or another, manufacturers in foreign countries have not to bear burdens which manufacturers in this country have to bear—two very pertinent observations—and he drew the conclusion which all of us on this side of the House would also draw, and which the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Lockwood) drew in a very
interesting maiden speech, that the home market is of increasing importance to us to-day. With all that, I entirely agree. When you look at the fall in our export trade and the concurrent rise in imports in this industry, the lesson which the right hon. Gentleman tried to hammer home becomes all the more true.
May I remind the House of the figures. They will not be contradicted by the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply, for I have taken them from his Journal. They are really most remarkable. If you take the year 1924 as the basic year—we had the Census of Production then—and you take the exports of that year at the figure of 100, you find that during the first nine months of this year, compared with the first nine months of 1924, the export of yarns in manufactures in this industry was only 58.8. If you put the figures in sterling, it means that we were exporting £51,000,000 worth of yarns in manufactures in the first nine months of 1924. In the first nine months of this year, at the 1924 values, which is a fair comparison, our exports were only worth £30,000,000. If that could all be attributed to a general decline in world trade—we should certainly have to take notice of it—we might say that it was a passing phase, and that we hoped for better times.
In the meantime, what has been happening to imports I The retained imports were 28 per cent. higher than they were in 1924. You get a rise of £3,000,000 worth. If you take the very latest figures, the figures for October of this year compared with October of a year ago, what do you find? In October of this year the exports were down from £4,300,000 to £2,900,000. That means a reduction in tissues of nearly 2,500,000 square yards in a month. It means a reduction of 1,700,000 lbs. in yarns. At the same time, there was no such fall in imports. On the contrary, imports rose in quantity by something like 19 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in general terms, but those figures, which are in the possession of the Board of Trade and are published by the Board of Trade, surely, hammer home the vital importance to this industry of looking after our home markets.

Mr. B. RILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures as to the
actual increase in imports of tissues this year as compared with last year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that I can do so. In the single month the increase is 19 per cent. This was in October, and relate's to the last published figures. The published figures which I have quoted as being issued by the Board of Trade are, I think, a fair comparison, because they are volume figures, taking 1924 as our basic year. Year after year our exports have steadily gone down, and to-day they are more than 40 per cent. below 1924, whereas, at the same time the retained imports into this country have gone up to between 28 and 29 per cent.

Mr. RILEY: For one month?

10.0 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, certainly not; for nine months. I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to check those figures. I will give them again, because I have extracted them from the Board of Trade Journal. I have been challenged, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to check the figures. I say that, taking the figure of 1924 as 100, our exports in the first nine months of this year are 58.8 as compared with 100 in 1924, which is a reduction of more than 40 per cent. in our exports. Is that denied?

Mr. RILEY: No.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: At the same time, the retained imports into this country are at the figure of 128.3 for exactly the same period, which is an increase of 28 per cent. in our imports, comparing like with like and volume with volume, and taking nine months with nine months. If there is any doubt about it, I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to be good enough to have these figures checked in his Department. If I have made a single error, I will correct it and apologise, but if I have not made a mistake let the figures go to the world, and let the world judge what has happened.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of looms. We used to be told that the manufacturer might suffer, but other people were all right. We are learning to-day that we are all bound together,
and that whether it is the manufacturer of yarns or of tissue, or the loom-maker, or the merchant, all their interests are the same. If you go to the West Riding of Yorkshire to-day you will find that loom-makers are unable to get orders, unless they are orders for foreign countries. You find the very striking contrast, that whereas in certain protected industries new factories are springing up and new machinery is being introduced, factories are being dismantled in Yorkshire and being transferred across the sea to protective countries. It is said that the merchants prosper. I have been in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I can say that far from the merchants prospering in these times by being able to collect foreign goods. and sell them all over the world, they are reducing their staffs, and are having about as thin a time as ever they have had before.
We are told that we must go in for reorganisation. What guarantee is there for the home market? If there is no chance of getting into the foreign markets by effective bargaining power, what chance or encouragement is there for these industries to reorganise and set their house in order? If we had got an export under this system to compensate the industry, so much the better, but, the figures regarding exports are symptomatic of the whole of our trade. Our export trade this year is down by £120,000,000 already compared with last year, and last year was not a particularly cheerful year. The right hon. Gentleman added at the end of his speech that there is only one way to help. You have to have a home market and increase the purchasing power in the home market. Again I agree. He said, "Get it by taxation. I do not mean tax the industrialist, but tax the rich man, the rentier." Supposing you try, you will find it very difficult. The rentier, as you call him, the man who has no stake in this country, who has not sunk his fortune in this country in factories, land or employment, will very soon find his way out through your taxation.
The one man on whom your taxation will fall, and on whom it is falling to-day—and rising unemployment is the consequence—is the man who has had the courage and faith to keep his money
in this country, to sink his money in this country, whether he is a landowner on his land or a manufacturer in his factory. That is the man whom you are going to hit, and you are going to hit the whole of industry with him. It is an extraordinarily easy thing to make rich men poor, but it is a much more difficult thing, and more important, to make poor men richer. You will not do the latter by increasing burdens of taxation, but you will do it by increasing the employment of your people, by giving security to your people in the market which matters the most, and by seeing that that market which to-day consumes four-fifths of our production consumes a great deal more of our home production. Every man whom you put into work by giving him a chance of working in a protected industry will be increasing the real purchasing power of this country and will be helping another man without doing anyone any damage. There lies the only chance of the Government taking practical and effective steps to help this or any other industry.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I had hardly begun to listen to the right hon. Gentleman when he sat down. I could almost have wished that I could concede the whole of his contention without further ado. If such a thing as an adjustment in tariffs, by way of particular method of Safeguarding or by a more general scheme, could solve the problem which confronts the West Riding of Yorkshire. I should be very happy indeed. I am afraid that by the iteration of the wonder-working powers of Safeguarding and tariff systems we are only encouraging delay in the real tackling of the problem. The woollen industry, while it has its distinguished home in the West Riding of Yorkshire, is not confined to that great Riding. We are thinking in this Motion in terms of an industry which has something like 1,250,000 people in it scattered over a large number of countries in the world; and I am one of those, along with my hon. Friends, who takes the view that we are not going to get a plan for the redemption of the West Riding and its basic industry until we think of the West Riding very much more in terms of that wider industry in which, for good or evil, it has to take its inevitable setting.
I want to make my plea for the adoption of certain new practical measures for the treatment of this industry on the grounds that in this post-War period the West Riding has to deal with an entirely new set of facts, and so far as I know the industry in the West Riding has not examined those facts and has not devised a programme which appears to us to be consonant with those facts. Down to 1914 we might, very properly, either in this House or as responsible. leaders of the textile industry in the West Riding, in the main have confined ourselves to a West Riding discussion, because the rest of the world was relatively unimportant from the point of view of the fortunes of the Riding. Every Member of this House knows that since the outbreak of the world War there has been a revolutionary change in the textile industry. It is not only that the countries which were engaged in the War intensified their national development of the wool industry, but that a large number of other countries which up to that time had never thought of having a wool industry of their own were, by the pressure of circumstances, driven into that field of economic adventure.
The House knows that there are a dozen or 15 countries which are rapidly on the way to-day to becoming self-satisfying in their woollen needs which in 1914 were among our greatest markets for the export of West Riding woollen goods. Take, for example, Japan. It we compare the figures of 1914 with those of to-day, we can say, roughly, that Japan has multiplied her imports of wool by four, and that she has multiplied her number of spindles by three. When the 1928 report on the economic conditions in Japan was submitted to the Board of Trade by our own people out there, they said, what I think is not to be controverted:
Japan is gradually becoming self-supporting in woollens as she has already become in cottons. In a long view of the situation, the conclusion is inevitable that imports will be confined, firstly, to raw wool, and secondly, to certain specialities; and British representatives on the spot have no hesitation in declaring that the Japan market is becoming more difficult for them every year.
Let us take the case of Australia. We have had not only from the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Lockwood), in his maiden speech to-night, but from one or
two other Members who have spoken from the opposite benches, views put forward as to the possibility of Empire trade in the woollen industry from the point of view of assisting the West Riding of my own county'. It is true that Australia had a slight woollen industry in 1913, but it was only a slight one. We can say, roughly, that the Australian woollen industry dates from the outbreak of the world War. They have gone ahead and, according to the latest figure which I have, their woollen factories have developed from 22 before the outbreak of the War to 50 in 1929, and their workers have increased from 5,000 in 1913 to 9,000 at the end of last year. What is snore significant, notwithstanding the fact that we do get a preference from Australia with regard to the sale of British textiles—it is well known to all Members of the House—is that the tariff barrier against the ingress of woollens into Australia has been raised again and again since 1913. Even with the advantage of the preference, we have to record that since 1913 British woollen products exported into Australia have fallen from nearly 13,000,000 square yards to 10,000,000 square yards at the end of 1927. Although I have not got the figure for 1929 or 1930, my impression is that the figure will be very much below 10,000,000 at the present time.
If the fact be true, as has been argued from the other side to-night, that we may look to the Dominions for some help for the West Riding of Yorkshire, I would ask hon. Members how they would interpret the statement made by Mr. Fenton when he was recently at Bradford. He wanted to give some comfort to my good friends in Bradford; they are in a bad way, and Australia is theoretically a big potential market, He said to them that
The best he could do"—
speaking on behalf of Australia now and for many years to come—
for the British manufacturers was to invite them to come out to Australia and help to develop the industry there.
That is a very subtle and, to anyone who knows the patriotic and adventurous spirit of the West Riding, a very seductive appeal to put before West Riding people. But it does not help the problem of the West Riding industry and its future. I understand that Mr. Bennett,
speaking on behalf of Canada, made an almost identical remark in regard to Canada during the recent Imperial Conference. Japan and Australia were before the War actual and enormously potential markets for the West Riding of Yorkshire. Let us take a third example. We had a very considerable market for British woollens in the Italian market before the War. What is the situation to-day? The space of 17 years not only has produced an economic nationalism in the woollen industry which has gone so far in Italy that she is completely independent of the British exports of woollen goods, but she has become an effective competitor in many countries where we had quasi-monopoly conditions in the days before the War. She has not only gone to the Balkans, but she has entered into the markets of China and India and threatens, for political as well as economic reasons, more than to hold her own in those outlying fields. What is true of these three countries, which I have taken as a type, is true of at least a dozen other countries that could be named.
The West Riding is not simply confronted with a superficial problem of tariff adjustment, but with a revolutionary change in its environment. Now, and as far ahead as we can see, we have 15 or 16 countries all of which are saying: "We are going to build up in our own country our own supplies of woollen textile goods." They are saying that not only, as in the case of Canada and Australia, because they want to become by deliberate choice an industrial nation at all costs, but because the woollen industry is deeply integrated in the system of defence in the life of a nation. Everyone knows that the British "Tommy" during the War consumed on his back and with his equipment four times as much woollen as the average civilian does at the present time. In any fair reckoning of what is necessary for the defence of a nation in time of war, the woollen industry takes a primary place. War cannot be conducted without mobilising the textile industry as a war industry. Whatever, therefore, may happen in the future development of nations with regard to the tariff problem, even supposing that my right hon. Friend at Geneva makes good and succeeds in bringing down to some extent the mounting tariff barriers
of Europe, the woollen industry will be among the last to yield to that development, because the woollen industry will always be classified as an industry which is absolutely indispensable for the conduct of modern war. Until we have a far larger measure of international security than we have at the present time, no nation, certainly none of the 15 or 16 nations which we have in mind, is going to give up its intensive sense of need and necessity for building up at all costs its own woollen textile industry.
The argument that I am building up from the recapitulation of these fairly obvious facts is, that the conditions of international marketing for the textile industry of the West Riding have, from our point of view, undergone a profound and a relatively permanent change. We are confronted with a large number of nations which, progressively, are going to drive out British textile goods because their policy, irrespective of tariffs, is to become self-sufficing with regard to this particular industry. The time has come when we ought, as a House of Commons and as a nation, to have some kind of ground plan, a, map, for the textile industry of this country, not in relation to a temporary trade depression or the superficial issues of tariffs and free trade but in relation to the permanent change in the industrial environment in which the great textile industry has now to make good.
In the second place, I want to plead for new practical measures. Although we have had three important reports bearing on the woollen industry in recent years, not one of them gives the kind of map of which Yorkshire and the nation stands in need at the present time. The Balfour report, which will be indispensable to economic students for a generation to come—without a perusal of this report no man can hope to make any contribution to the study of post-war problems—has devoted half of one of its volumes to a description of post-war conditions in the woollen industry, but that report, whilst it hints at the need for reorganisation in several departments of the woollen industry, does not provide any kind of plan. It is content to paint a map and give some kind of faithful objective description of
the new economic world in which we have to find our way. The other two important reports, whilst they contain paragraphs bearing on practical measures, do not give the plan for which we are pleading to-night.
The Macmillan report is important because the protagonists before that committee laid down their separate plans for the future of the industry, and these plans were mutually contradictory. The leaders of the organised workers maintained that there was a case for the rationalisation of the industry, for bringing in methods of mass production and the abandonment of the methods of salesmanship in the West Riding, in Great, Britain and abroad and substituting new forms. They maintained that there was a strong case for the introduction of new kinds of machinery and for the complete abandonment of a large number of small firms which have done distinguished work in the 19th century, but which can find no rational place under the profoundly changed conditions of the post-War period. That is the programme which was submitted by the organised leaders of the textile industry, and I suggest that when it comes to the problem of serving the industry and the nation that no Member of this House of any party will deny that the leaders of the workers, those who are responsible not for the capitalist side but for the lives of the people in the industry, will say that their contribution is not entitled to as much consideration as that which comes from the most important employer and organiser of capital in the industry.
When the employers put forward their evidence to Lord Macmillan it was diametrically opposed to that of the workers' leaders. They said, in effect, that there was no case for the reorganisation of the industry, or for the introduction of new machinery and large-scale methods of production, or for a change in the present methods of salesmanship. They said that there was, on the contrary, a distinct advantage in the industry remaining as it was and retaining the small firms of 10, 15 or 20 people. They said that the large variety of finer products demanded in the woollen industry, as contrasted with the cotton industry, made the small firm an indispensable and permanent feature in any sound organisation of the industry. I am not contend-
ing as to which view is right. I am only pointing out, that Lord Macmillan had to hand in his report unfinished. He said: "I cannot pronounce judgment on an issue of this kind. I have been invited to pronounce judgment on the issue of wages. I have not had time to examine all the evidence upon which, alone I would be able to pronounce judgment on the other issue." Therefore, he left the matter in suspense with one reference to the preceding report, the report of the Safeguarding Committee, which alleged that on the whole the organisation of the industry was reasonably efficient. That certificate of reasonable efficiency was based on the assumption that the leaders of the industry were then actively considering the introduction of new machinery and large-scale methods of production and a general reorganisation consonant with the requirements of a new age. But that has not been done, and therefore we are in this position—and this is the second reason why I think the time has come for practical measures to be applied—that neither we as House of Commons, nor British public opinion, nor the employers of labour, nor the workers, have any kind of ground plan for the future conduct of the industry.
The industry is torn in two as to what its future plan of campaign should be. That is an intolerable position and I make a plea to my hon. Friend to take up this business where Lord Macmillan left off. We have now been going along for eight or nine years being told each year that we are going to get out of our difficulties, but we are drifting from bad to worse. It may sound rather stale to advocate the idea of another committee of inquiry but we are at the beginning of a new period in our national economic life and we, as a party, have always maintained that yon cannot legislate on the basis of ignorance. You have to know your map first and there is not a map in this case. Therefore I invite my hon. Friend to render to this industry the great service which we have already rendered, as a Labour Government, to the textile industry of Lancashire. We have given that industry a map. This question is above the level of party and hon. Members opposite will agree that in that case we have got the considered verdict of the wisest people who we could collect. I plead for a
similar inquiry into the woollen industry of the West Riding so that we may get to know where we are.
I have been in this House for six years; represent a constituency which is under a cloud of this problem and this is the first time I have ventured to open my mouth on this subject. I do not know what form reorganisation is to take, but I am very deeply concerned, and I hope, from many points of view that my hon. Friend is wrong in his conception of the future organisation of the industry I have eight or nine villages in my constituency each containing a relatively small plant, and each village lives on its plant. I would like to be assured, if it is possible, that there is a future for the small townships of our Yorkshire dales on a scientific basis. I am anxious to know, for I have three iron steel works in my constituency. One—Penistone—is knocked out of existence, and the others are threatened. There are, too, a number of small pits; they are marginal pits, and they also are theoretically doomed. I am deeply interested in what is to be the nature of the reorganisation of the woollen textile industry. I am prepared to take the view that there may be a powerful case for the relatively small kind of technique, but I do not believe that several hundreds of small factories working independently of one another, and all going anarchically their own way, have a chance. If they are to survive, it will only he if they are integrated into a common system. That is a problem with which I want to see this House concerned.
I urge the Government to do for the woollen industry of Yorkshire at least what has already been done for the cotton industry of Lancashire, for the desperate problem of the iron and steel industry, and for the mining industry, and to see, if we cannot have legislation to deal with the problem in the lifetime of this Government, that we are able at least to hand on to the next Government a ground plan with a scientific objective. This was a great pioneer industry in the middle ages, and, but for the Yorkshire textile industry, I doubt if India would be in the British Empire to-day. I am pleading for a re-capture of a wider kind of patriotism in order that we may escape from a system which as no place in the 20th
century. Yorkshire men and women, once they have their map, will do what they did in the middle ages. Let us have this map, so that we may know where we are, and what is the direction in which this nation ought to move.

Major LONG: Representing a Division in the West of England, where the textile industry for the past 50 years has become gradually lower and lower, I felt that the least I could do was to make the strongest representations to the Government to take action with regard to this industry, and not to be satisfied with mere words. The many speeches to which I have listened in this debate from hon. Members opposite has been, I am sure, made from perfectly sincere motives, but they have been without the least constructive policy. The only constructive policy that has been put before the House to-day and in the past is that which has been put forward by my tight hon. Friend on the Opposition Bench, that of safeguarding this industry, which was turned down by the present Government. In the past 30 years over 20 of my textile factories have gone out of use. Within the past three months another one that has been working for more than 100 years has gone; and we are faced with an unemployment situation which I can say with all sincerity I have done my best to alleviate during the past 20 years. Hon. Members opposite made statements about managers, about the banks, and about the employers in some factories not being very generous. I desire to deny that. In my part of the world, I say emphatically, no one has clone more to help the situation than the managers and the employers in the textile industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is that?"] The West of England has long been noted for its cloth, and if India is on the map because of Bradford I would remind the House that the first 200,000 of Kitchener's Army who went to the War were equipped in West of England cloth, because Bradford wool had failed at that time. However, I only point that out in passing.
These are not the times for words. Action is what we need now. Hon. Members opposite say that these bankers and these employers are no use to the industry and ought to go. I would point out, with all respect, that there are
scores and scores of employés being kept on in the factories in my Division through the kindness of heart of the employers, though there is no business for them to do and there is no money to be made. Other hon. Members opposite have tried to make out that we on this side have been in favour of a decrease in wages. I beg to say the contrary is the case. I fought the last two elections on the policy of Safeguarding, and though my constituency is a Liberal seat I have held it with the policy of Safeguarding. Working men and working women who are out of work can see in that a definite and tangible policy which they can catch hold of, and they know that workers in other safeguarded industries have benefited by the bonuses which have been given to them.
Hon. Members opposite have said time and time again: "Where does the working man or the working woman benefit under Safeguarding?" Let them come down to my Division, and I will show them. It has been said that our own exports have never gone up. I beg to differ. In the safeguarded industries in my own Division exports have gone up, but they will shortly decrease and pass out of sight altogether. Owing to whom? To the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is the gentleman who has done that for the unemployed. [Interruption.] Oh yes, you can jeer that, but believe me it will not be long before working men and working women will have found out the hypocrisy not only of hon. Members opposite but of their Front Bench.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I think one is entitled to say that some very interesting and useful contributions have been male from both sides of the House to the debates we have had this evening, largely because those who have taken part have spoken with a first-hand knowledge of the Industries which were under discussion. It is not possible for me to speak with a firsthand knowledge of this industry, but I am not entirely without sympathy with it, because I happen to represent a constituency which was the woollen textile centre in this country before the industry found itself in Yorkshire. We, unfortunately, were too far away from the coal fields to retain the industry when the power loom came into operation. The
Mover of the Motion, in a speech of great interest, and very much to the point, justified it by a series of figures illustrating the very parlous condition of the woollen industry. Figures have been given relating to unemployment which in themselves are a complete justification for this House endeavouring to examine this subject with a view to finding out some policy which will bring about an alteration. The figures of unemployment were followed by others relating to the closing down of factories, all of which indicate that poverty and distress must loom very large in the areas where the woollen industry is carried on.
Those figures and illustrations were followed up by suggestions that there were three heads under which this problem might be considered. The first was that of tariffs; the second that of low wages, and the third some scheme of reorganisation whereby with greater efficiency and greater control the industry might reach a more flourishing condition. It is quite true that the second of these suggestions has not been put forward as a means of bringing prosperity back to the woollen trade. I do not know that I can accept the suggestion that those three proposals can be allocated to the three parties in this House. If the suggestion of low wages is to be associated with the Liberal party, as was suggested by an hon. Member opposite, all I can say is that it has not been put forward here to-night; in fact, no contribution has come from the Liberal benches in regard to this matter.
It is perfectly obvious that, as far as the debate has gone, the House is divided in regard to two suggestions, that of tariffs and re-organisation. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. B. Riley) very largely anticipated the arguments that might be put forward so far as tariffs are concerned. He pointed out by quotations and figures that the problem very largely lies, as far as diminishing trade is concerned, on the side of reduced exports rather than in the direction of increased imports. Figures have been quoted to show that the position was not exactly as the hon. Member for Dewsbury has suggested. In seeking to justify this point of view, the right hon. Member gave figures relating to the years 1924 and 1930. If we are to test the position so far as im-
ports are concerned, that is hardly a fair basis on which to make a comparison. We all know how much industry has been disturbed in post-War years, and how abnormal everything became. The woollen industry suffered as much as any industry in this country because of our requirements during the period of the War and the years that followed. Therefore, it is not easy to make an exact comparison with any two post-War years so far as the figures are concerned.
I would like to suggest to my right hon. Friend—and I am not for one moment challenging any figure that he took, because I know how careful he is in looking into these matters, and when official figures are quoted it is not very easy to challenge them on the ground of accuracy—I would suggest to him that one of the best means of comparison, so far as imports are concerned, to determine to what extent they are the damaging factor in connection with the woollen industry, is to take some pre-War years which may be considered as the pre-War normal, and compare them with the position of to-day, or as near an approach to it as we can get. I have not looked at these figures very closely, and, therefore, I speak with same reservation, but I understand that the year 1928 is the peak post-War year so far as retained imports are concerned—that the imports in that year were the highest of any of the post-War years. I am under the impression that that is so, and I think that perhaps the figures would support that contention.
What is the position? Taking that year as the one most favourable to my right hon. Friend's comparison, what do the figures show so far as the year 1923 is concerned, as compared with the pre-War years which I am going to quote? The ratio of retained imports to home consumption in 1907 was 23.9 per cent. In 1912, the ratio of retained imports to home consumption was 18.1 per cent., while in 1928, the highest post-War year for imports, it was only 13.6 per cent. Therefore, the relative position of retained imports in regard to home consumption is much more favourable today than it was in pre-War years. Let us take another basis, comparing retained imports with home production. There we find a state of things similar to that which obtained in regard to home consumption. The ratio of retained im-
ports in 1907 to the total home production was 16.6 per cent. In 1912 it was 13.1 per cent., while in 1928, the peak post-War year, it was 9.3 per cent. Therefore, if the problem which we have to consider at this moment is a post-War problem of exceptional depression as compared with the position in pre-War days, I suggest that these figures which I have quoted do not indicate in any way that the imports which are coming into this country constitute the main problem so far as the condition of the woollen industry is concerned.
On the question of exports also, suggestions have been made, which were largely answered by subsequent speakers. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Look-wood), in a very interesting speech, which I think did him the greatest credit as a first effort in this House, more especially when we learn that it is only quite recently that he undertook to speak in politics at all, emphasised the idea that what we ought to aim at is closer economic unity with the Dominions. While it may be very difficult for us at this moment, with the limited opportunities that present themselves for examination of this problem, to strike the exact and most successful line of action to be taken, it is also very important that we should avoid following any false trail, and I think I am entitled to emphasise the observations that have been made on this matter, both by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Jowett) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) when they stated that it is more or less useless to look to the Dominions as our main objective as a means of re-establishing our export trade.
We are all, I am sure, imbued with a very strong desire to develop to the fullest possible extent our trade, not only in the woollen industry, but in all other manufactured goods, with the Dominions overseas; but we know that in the explicit statements, made by the Dominion representatives, not only in private conversation, but in declaration's at the Imperial Conference and certainly at meetings and gatherings which they have addressed at different times during their stay here, they have emphasised one thing perhaps
more than anything else, and that is that it is not merely their desire, but their determination to develop their secondary industries, and as far as possible to convert their primary produce into manufactured goods. That has been emphasised time and time again, and therefore I am sure it is not much use looking to them, much as we should desire it, as a means of re-establishing our export trade.
There is one phase of the question which has not been touched upon to-night very fully, and which I think is worth a word or two. I do not want to repeat arguments of a general character to the effect that we are passing through a world depression, yet that is a fact which we cannot ignore. I should like to suggest that none of our industries has suffered more from the fall in the price of primary products than the woollen industry. I listened the other night to a very interesting talk broadcast by Mr. McKenna on our monetary system. He emphasised this very important fact, that it is almost impossible to maintain a steady volume of trade or to increase it during a time when prices are rapidly falling. We must recognise that no essential crop has fallen more in price than wool has done. I have been looking up some figures to-day, not full or complete, because there are so many different qualities and grades of wool that I cannot take them all, but, taking four headings, I was able to get figures which show that in every case the price of wool to-day is less than the price of wool in pre-War times.
It is obvious that when prices are falling, as indicated by the illustrations I have given, manufacturers buy as short as possible for their requirements. By buying short they intensify the very problem with which we are faced, and so it goes on until it is difficult to say when bottom will be reached, and a turn of tide taken. The effect of the fall of prices there has had a result right throughout the country, and there is a tendency to refrain from purchasing goods when we are face to face with a falling market. Side by side with that we have the further fact that we have had reductions in wages, which has reduced the purchasing power of the people. I think that fact and the fact of falling prices may be an indication that the
problem, as far as wool is concerned, is perhaps an intensified feature of the present depression which is world-wide in character. One can only hope that prices have touched bottom, and that there will be a reaction in an upward direction. As Mr. McKenna pointed out, there would then be a stimulus for buying, because the tendency would be for buyers not to wait for the market but to endeavour to get in before it changes.
The suggestion contained in the Motion is that the Government should take some practical means of bringing about reorganisation in the industry. The hon. Member for Penistone emphasised most strongly the desirability of something being done, and the same kind of action being taken as in regard to cotton. It has also been pointed out in this debate that the woollen industry has been subjected to three inquiries during a very short period of time, and it is difficult to keep on making inquiries into an industry even in the present circumstances. I am afraid, further, that our experience so far as cotton is concerned does not give us much encouragement in that direction. Although I fully believe, as indeed was said at the time that the cotton report was published, that it is a very valuable document, a very sound and practical survey of the industry and the problems associated with it, and that it did present in its recommendations suggestions of value were they able to be carried out, on the other hand we were told in a recent debate in this House that all the facts contained in that report were well known to the industry before the report was issued.
I am rather inclined to think that the facts, so far as the woollen industry is concerned, as a result of the inquiries that have taken place in the last four years are well known, and it is doubtful whether, if an economic plan such as has been suggested were prepared, there would be any greater readiness on the part of the manufacturers in the industry
to accept that report or to apply its recommendations than has been shown in the cotton industry.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I appreciate that there have been three inquiries into the woollen industry in the last few years, but none of them has been concerned with inquiring into how it could be conducted in the future. They were concerned with matters of Safeguarding and of wages.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I admit that the three inquiries that have taken place have been very limited in their character, because they have been related to specific objects, two in regard to the question of Safeguarding and one in regard to wages, but I was emphasising that the fact that these inquiries have taken place does not make it easy to set up another inquiry now. There is this further fact, that if the industry itself is aware of this problem as a result of what investigation has taken place, it would be far better for them if they accepted even the suggestion of the hon. Member for Batley (Mr. B. Turner), as contained in his telegram which was read by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, that the Industrial Council should get together and see how far they could examine this problem and make some suggestions. But if an inquiry were held now, there is a tendency that the industry would be inclined, instead of applying its mind towards some change or reorganisation, to wait for a, period of months until that report was produced.
I can only say, in conclusion, that the Government and the Department with which I am associated will continue to keep our minds centred upon this industry, and if at any time any useful purpose can be served, by any action on our part, we shall be only too pleased to take it and to help to the best of our ability.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House urges His Majesty's Government to take all practical measures for the reorganisation of the woollen textile industry in order to promote economic efficiency and prosperity.

Orders of the Day — BUILDINGS (ESCAPE FROM FIRE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. W. R. SMITH: It would be most unfortunate for the House to be led into giving a Second Reading to a Bill of this description, though its Title may indicate that it is a very useful Measure, unless the House has some information so far as its proposals are concerned. I have not heard the Gentleman who is responsible for introducing it give any reasons or justification why the House could be called upon to give it a Second Reading.

It being Eleven o'Clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday next.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may he reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee shall have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Adamson, Lieut.-Colonel Ainsworth, Mr. Patel, Captain Bourne, Captain Briscoe, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Carter, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Egan, Mr. Foot, Mr. Arthur Law, Mr. Lee, Mr. Duncan Millar, and Mr. Raynes nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Glastonbury, which was presented on the 10th day of November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the urban district council of Clacton, which was presented on the 12th day of November and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hayes.]

Mr. ALBERY: I desire to raise a question which has been touched upon at Question Time by three or four Members on this side of the House but on which it was not possible to get an adequate explanation by means of question and reply across the Floor of the house. I refer to the advertisements of foreign products in British Government publications, and the one to which I particularly wish to draw attention is an advertisement which has appeared in the postage stamp books drawing attention to the desirability of purchasing foreign bacon. This book was circulated at a time when members of the Imperial Conference were in the country, and if they bought a book of stamps they probably found a recommendation that people should buy foreign bacon. Further, the Minister of Agriculture was introducing in this House an agricultural Measure asking for money from the State for the purpose of increasing production, and at the same
time the Government was publishing this form of advertisement in a British Government publication. Quite apart from any question of politics, there is a very good reason why advertisements of this kind should not be accepted. Every publication has to give consideration to the kind of advertisement which it inserts. Obviously, there are many advertisements unsuitable for insertion in a respectable publication. There is always a certain amount of censorship. The Post Office, which is the principal
offender in this matter, should exercise a certain amount of censorship in regard to the advertisements inserted in its publications. The Post Office is a national service, and is supported, in a sense, out of public funds by the taxpayers of the country.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—

The House was adjourned at Nine Minutes after Eleven of the clock until To-morrow.